London Met may cut 500 jobs, UCU claims

Why, in the case of London Met, is the Executive not required to take responsibility for these longterm 'problems with the university's data on student dropouts'? The funding council, too, bears some responsibility for its inability to identify such significant failures in accounting over a period of years. Those who are plainly not implicated at all in these 'problems with the university's data' are academic staff. I realise that this is an unusual suggestion, but why not call for Senior Executives to take responsibility for their own failures? Executive salary clawbacks might be a good place to start. I'd recommend that HEFCE start by putting pressure at the top, where it is needed, and work down.

S.Melrose will be gladdened to hear that HEFCE have invited Brian Roper to resign.

Do you have a source for that?

No use in pushing a single person out. Before some one else takes over and history repeating again, a high power external committee should be appointed to determine how many others should go in each layer of the university structure. In my reckoning it has to touch departments in a big way from upwards to down. Each staff should be in the management and teaching cadre should justify his or her continuance in the cadre and no stone should be left unturned. This is probably the worst post-92 univesity.

Please back the HEFCE/Roper claim up with factual evidence or stop posting veneomous spam, "Former Londonmet employee".

After the merger with UNL, is has been reported that London Met has been audited every year since 2002. If Price Waterhouse found inaccuracies the the HEFCE should have informed the university sooner, and adjustments could have been made to data supplied. Historically London Guildhall had been in the black since making cutbacks in 1996 of both staff and buildings. Since 2002 we have been saddled with bad management, so therefore all of the senior management team should go!

PWC will not know if the data on student drop outs is wrong. Really, it is each department's responsibility to get the correct data ready for passing. For example, when I receive data CD from somewhere in Jewery street every year to feed to my course report, the data is always found to be wrong. I correct them , send them to my subject area leader and still the incorrect data goes into the statistics. All subject area leaders in my department responsible for just about everything departmental including data submission since 2002 took early retirement and gone and so is the head. That head and his team were absolute morons and they ruined the department and walked off with early retirement cheques. They were from the City Campus. I say no more. I have applied to a few adverts to get out.. London Met is a sinking ship. Should be restructured root and branch.

I am Current Staff Member who, unlike some sour minded employees, who have obviously nothing better to do with their time at London Met than to moan about their working lives, supports my employer and it's VC! I can only despise those who have the audacity to take up their issues with their employer’s policies and procedures in such a public forum. You current staff professing to faults in the system are more to blame than any other. If you know there is something wrong then fix it or take it to someone who can. TAKE RESPONSABILITY! It is this mentality that can ruin as Institution like ours.

It has to be said that, with a number of notable exceptions (who HAVE provided informed, analytic and constructive commentary on the situation), the level of academic, intellectual articulacy amongst contributors (to this and the previous blog on the subject) is surprisingly poor, particularly as these views are putatively those of academics. The ability to form considered views, based on fact, to express them coherently, and to engage critically (and by this, I mean intellectually) with the issues is fundamental to our identities as academics. Forgive me for stating the obvious; and I can only surmise that the majority of those able to do this are actually so swamped with the marking and preparation associated with this point in the semester that they haven't had time. Please - keep sight of the main issues. There are major issues facing us as academics and as an institution, and it is these major issues we, as academics, need to address. Airing petty grievances here is in no-one's interest. Yes, this is a public forum; but sometimes, ACS, there is no other option, as attempts within the insititution to 'fix it or take it to someone who can' are met with a brick wall, and this brick wall is actually a major part of the problem. If we have a responsibility, it is to use this public forum in a constructive manner, to exchange ideas, and to find possible ways forward.

Having previously worked for LMU in the SYSS department, I can only confirm that the significant amount of problems the University faces come from top to bottom rather than the other way around as some may wish the outside world to believe. I have seen countless (now ex,) colleagues work tirelessly to selflessly serve and support students and staff members without any complaint to the fact that they are underpaid compared to other institutions and without any complaint to the fact that they are understaffed or repeatedly bullied by management.. Yet there is a threat of 500 redundancies looming, 2/3rds of which would affect PSD staff, SYSS included. It is unabashedly shameful for the management of every level to continue this trend of underpay, overwork and bully-boy tactics. It is time that the press stepped in and blew the cover, it is time that the unions and government stepped in and removed the despots. The time for empires is long over, it should have been eliminated during the merger, instead it was made worse. It is time therefore that internal and external forces combined to make a change to the management, not to the lower staff. To my ex-colleagues, I wish you the best of luck.

This university is beyond redemption. The only way forward is to abandon this sinking ship. While any one has still got the ability to leave, leave now! In universities like this, if one senior management team leaves another one takes its place and sure as the day follows the night new set of problems will emerge.

Forget RAE 2008 for a start. The biggest mistake was to metamorphosise former polytechnics into universities through a quick privy council nod. What it did was to cut off the core skills development framework likeHNCs and HNDs which withered away replacing them instead with fancy undergraduate degrees which had shaky foundation. The directors of polys became VCs with polytechnic structure intact with internal academic and departmental line management set up for micromanagement. There is a single national, at least England-wide examination, which determines the fitness of knowledge of secondary school leavers, it is called A level examination, which despite its flaws is a measure of students ability to undertake degree-level studies. The problem is that the new universities work around it, by-pass it to the extent that all new universities admit students to first year degrees who should really be studying HNCs. Hence the large drop outs. The VCs of London Met and LMU created white elephants, the science centre in London Met and sports centre in LMU. That was the way they wanted to show how their universities are different from other new universities. In the case of London Met, within a bicycling distance, there is an internationally famous institution for science studies, the UCL, and about 30 mins ride in tube is another equally prestigious institution, Imperial College. Is London Met geared to teach biological and chemical sciences, highly practical and knowledge intensive disciplines? Money was thrown at these centres and now London Met and LMU are in trouble. Replace these VCs and their entourage. Some others will step in and the cycle begins and problems come back.

There have been previous staff restructuring exercises, clearouts, and layoffs over the last 15 years, each time because of the financial mismanagement of the Senior Mgmt Group. The UNL-LGU merger was because of financial difficulties. It is clear to everyone that the problem with LMU is the finanancial incompetence of Senior Management. Whatever solution is decided upon, the problems will repeat themselves if the current management remains. Senior Management (Roper, Aylett, Link & Nelson) need to be sacked and a whole new (external) Senior Management installed. Only then can any objective & honest appraisal of further redundancies be initiated.

I agree with previous comments regarding the incompetence & bullying from senior management. I saw the writing on the wall 3 years ago when the expensive vanity projects of the Science Centre & Grad Centre monstrosity were pushed through as White Elephant symbols of the VC's vanity, and I gladly took VR at the earliest opportunity. I strongly recommend everyone who is confident of their professional abilities & future employability should get their CV distributed and get off the sinking ship as quickly as possible, before it goes down & takes you with it. Leaving LMU was the best move I ever made.

Certainly there were a number of suggestions made from ground-floor staff to management over the past 5 years to clarify more accurate student enrollment & retention figures in the Student-Records system, yet for some reason management never seemed keen to prioritise that project. I wonder why? It has now been suggested that the exaggerated student figures were done deliberately, in an attempt to scam extra funds from HEFCE, as the easiest way to finance the building of the Science Block & Graduate Centre (and provide Senior Management with their bonuses & pensions).

Financial difficulties almost since the beginning of London Met as a merged university. LMU had not only been returning inflated figures for the number of students but also using an entirely perverse definition in order to calculate those numbers. Difficult to see how this could have been accidental. There have already been three rounds of voluntary redundancies . University will not accept all those who apply for voluntary redundancy because have only enough money for a few (possibly 50 or so but HR refuse to tell us the budget). Nor will they rule out the possibility that someone who applies for voluntary redundancy and is turned down would then be selected for compulsory redundancy. the university has an incompetent and hostile management that has been incapable of dealing with this problem. This is the third major dispute with staff in six years and has been accompanied by attacks on both unions. We are already seeing a concerted effort by managemnt to weaken our conditions of work, increase our teaching hours beyond national norms, reduce our ability to take leave, insist on draconian 'always-at-your-desk' working practices, attack our union facility agreements, and condone managerial bullying. These attacks are likely to multiply as our staff base diminishes and workloads increase. As the university becomes less attractive and student completion rates suffer, it is likely that student numbers will decline, making more redundancies a possibility and so on

isn't the main problem the rise of 'new' Universities who have stopped teaching technical skills and want to teach 'proper' degrees. As a nation we are telling kids that they can all be actors, journalists or lawyers and now have a plethora of Performing Arts, Media Studies and Law degrees. Whe there are simply not enough openings in those roles to employ al the graduates. We will need ( when the recession ends) plumbers, plasterers, brickies etc - lets get back to teaching those skills at least the graduates in those might get some work ! The 'new' Universities are then fighting to recruit the same student's - and teaching them things they will never get to do in life. Its no wonder thousands leave their courses and so become the non-completers that HEFCE wont pay for. Oh and by the way a 'Completer' under HEFCE rules is a student that attends all of their assessments ( they dont actually have to pass!).

Like London Met, Leeds Met is in some difficulties, with the VC leaving now. I do not think that even with a new VC and management the problems will go away. Let us face it,we are not in real universities. We are working in polytechnics bearing the title university but in structure created for micromanagement. The evidence is there to see. While Leeds Met is having convulsions, U of Leeds is happily moving forward. I was a Londoner and know LGU and SBU were not smoothly working. They had problems including student recruitment and SBU went through drastic shake up. Looks like London Met will have to go through another restructuring, and inevitably London will have fewer new universities. Mere change of senior management in a poly structure gives only temporary respite.

Originally, a triangular merger of LGU, UNL and UEL was proposed with HEFCE blessing. While the discussion was taking place, UEL pulled out, leaving LGU and UNL with the merger discussion. If LGU was so well run and managed and everything was hunky-dory, why was Floud the VC of LGU and his management team then went along with the merger? Why the staff of LGU who are now in the City Campus of London Met, whinging and still dreaming for LGU return, then went along with the merger plans? Why the LGU unions who are now so very vocal, almost kept silent and failed their membership in not objecting very strongly to the merger and did not persuade Floud and his management team to pull out like the UEL did? The unions will tell you now that they never expected this worse. No merger in education sector ever succeeded in modern times. Take the case of UCL and Imperial. Just a few years before LGU and UNL merger, the merger between UCL and Imperial was proposed and discussion between the parties advanced to the final stages. But rightly, both sides recognised the difficulties ahead and abandoned the merger plan. If Floud and his management team at LGU were so wonderful, LGU was so well run, financially very sound etc.. and Floud’s team no micromanagement, how were Floud and team able to take almost all the academic and non-academic staff and HODs with him when the merger was agreed? I was one of the very few academic staff who left LGU knowing that LGU would not survive alone, and that no merger however well carried out will not solve its problems, but would only postpone it. Floud and his management team knew it, the HODs knew it and we all knew it. Yet, those dissenters who were in large numbers stayed put and made no attempts to leave. The union played wicked politics thenand went along with Floud and his team betraying us. My message to my ex-LGU mates now is, you had your chance to object the merger plan or to get out and you did neither. . Do not believe the unionand its leaders. Get out if you can and leave the ship with leaks. Redundancies are inevitable in any case . If Roper and his team is replaced, another lot will come, another scam will emerge and it will be déjà vu again. The fact of the matter is redundancies of scale are inevitable across the new university sector. There will be more mergers between London’s new universities.

Forgive me if this seems a naive question, but I speak as a committed academic with a PhD and publication profile in my subject, working in an institution which aims to offer higher education to students from a wide range of educational and cultural backgrounds, all of whom have one thing in common: the desire and potential to learn. Yes, the institution has a particular history; but poor management at senior level, and the word 'Metropolitan' in the title apart, how does this differentiate this institution from a 'real' university? Elitism has, it would seem, become the hegemony.

Real Universities I too have a PhD and publications. My 'university' too has the word 'Metropolitan' in the title. London Met too has the word' Metropolitan' in the title. If as you say all the students we recruit have the desire and potential to learn, how come we have problems of retention in such large scale, which is the no 1 problem in new universities. It is not surprising that the undercounting of dropouts goes on in the new university sector, it is just that London Met seemed to have taken it too far. The differentiation: drop out rates, recruitment of students in the name of 'widening access ( a large number of them are simply do not have the background to undertake degree level studies) euphemism for fiddling with UCAS entry requirements to the level that almost any one can be given admission', strong micromanagement and departmentments structured based on formal admin lines rather than academic interest etc.. I agree with those who say that polys lost their identities, their ethos, and their natural strength by opting to be called as universities and mimicking what the redbrick (Old) universities do without ther requirements that go with it. It is not eliticism hegemony if students with good A level grades apply to Russell Group universities, many of them these days are from comprehensive school system. Only we in Britain twist the eliticism logic to reveal a mind set which accepts mediocrity. One cannot force the employers to accept mediocrity in numbers and we know which sector they prefer.

where all these students who are willing to learn are. If you walk around Holloway Road tube at enrolment time the streets are teeming with new students - buy Christmas its a lot quieter! Whilst accepting that there are genuine youngsters trying to get themselves an education where they have been let down by London schools and FE colleges, many of those who become non-completers have enrolled to get the student loan, council tax benefit etc. They have no intention of actually studying. I always thought that widening participation was about getting all of those who were capable of degree study into an University - not just opening the doors to all and sundry!

Before you point fingers and before you blame the students the VC, God the Universe and the Dolphins here is a simple checklist I always used no matter which University I have worked for... 1. Have I writen a journal paper or a book in the last 2 years that has trully made a difference? 2. Have I inspired a minimum of 3 students during my teaching at last semester? 3. Have I enganged with Industry this semester? 4. Have I visited some of the admin staff last semester to say thanks for their support? 5. Have i contributed in bringing additional money into this University in the past Year? If you have answered YES to all the above, you can start blaming who ever you like.... if NOT then perhaps you are as much to blame as anyone else...

Good on ye 5 point checklist! Well said to all those elitists, merger refusniks, sacked employees and academics who never do anything wrong...

5 point checklist..... for Londonmet academics It is a pity you did not giv us the full name to draw inspiration from you. You seemed to have worked in a numer of universities from what you say. Why is that? I am curious.

I love the 5 point checklist but come on "London Met employee" - to characterise any descenting voices as those of "elitists, merger refusniks, and sacked employees" is disingenuous to say the very least! You wouldn't happen by any chance to be a management stooge would you? :-) I will make one serious point though - the suggestion that the senior management deliberately inflated completion figures in order to finance their vanity building projects (and line their own pockets through huge bonuses and pay-rises while denying the rank and file staff theirs) has resonated deeply with both service area and academic staff across both campuses. Any remaining post-merger good will has gone completely out of the window! In order for the University to survive this funding crisis (and have any chance of success going forward) there has to be change at the top - the staff have absolutely no confidence in the present management whatsoever. I've worked at University for many years though good times and bad both pre and post-merger and I can honestly say I've never experienced the depth of anger and resentment that is being expressed by the 'ordinary' staff right now. I call upon the Governors (and failing that Hefce directly) to take action to save the University we love and remove this incompetent, dishonest, and increasingly irrelevant management before it is too late.

Northern Soul - why must I be a management stooge for outing the disaffected who have worked against this place for the last 6 years -your rhetoric is a bit dated, come on. As for those academics who are so quick to point the finger - who taught the all the non-completing students? And by the way - you don't have exclusive rights to Northern soul - or even North Campus soul...

Norrhern Soul It appears that you like the 5 point check list and obviously you satisfy all of them. In that case any university will have you. Is it not time to pack up and leave this sinking ship? Why bother about this incompetent management, when you have accomplishments in your track record which other employers would be interested. I am a lowly admin assistant , expecting the redundancy notice. I know that London Met chances of survival intact is very minimal. Another VC- another team, another day and another set of problems

'

For the person who said we should take responsibilty we have tried constantly informing the powers that be of students lack of attendance etc, sadly nothing happens!!! The folks i feel really sorry for in all this are the students who are being and will be let down at every turn, we have academics talking about punlications etc, chance would be a fine thing, by the time the marking, teaching and prepartion is done, not much time left. A fundamental change of emphasis is required arm the youngsters we have coming through with the tools and equipment to get the jobs they strive for and give the employers the trained staff they require. it is fundamental give the customers what they want.

@'we have tried' - at last, someone who gets it. Indeed it is the students who have the most to loose in this sorry affair, we should never loose sight of that. @'London Met employee' - I must say you seem very certain of your continued position in the scheme of things at London Met, you must a brother in the order of the rolled trouser leg or a member of a certain well known 'reformist' gentleman's club methinks? LOL Now I don't profess to speak for any consistency or campus, my views are entirely my own, but I do know for a fact that those views are damn sight closer to the those held by the majority of staff across both campuses than yours my friend. All departments at London Met are heavy-handily micromanaged from on high and you will therefore agree that any perceived shortcomings in the performance of the staff are actually those of the management so there's no point blaming the staff, 'disaffected' or otherwise. I had high hopes for London Met but here we are in 2009 - we've addressed none of the key challenges we faced in 2002. Meritocracy is an anathema at London Met, and cronyism reigns supreme. For those of us who worked so hard it is profoundly depressing. Roper, Aylett, Nelson, Link and the acolytes have let us all down severely. I love London Met and I want it to succeed but I've been around long enough to know it can't now without a change of leadership.

:)

I've been a student at the London Met for several years now and when I joined, it was great! We had excellent staff that really knew how to inspire students and who were actively involved in research. Unfortunately about 60% of those who taught me when I first started have been let go and they were all very good academics. They've been replaced by new PhD students, a foreign man who spends half his time trying to establish clear communication (but in vain) and have brought back retired personnel who know absolutely nothing about the latest developments in industry in the last 10 years. I am very disappointed with the University. I am an international student- a full fee paying student who helps finance the university. I did not have poor grades at ‘A’ levels but rather the equivalent of 3 A’s. I will return to my country this year, having felt cheated after receiving a below-par education.

The point of mentioning publications and qualifications was to illustrate that what is on offer to students is NOT mediocre, or second rate to that found in the older universities. Granted, for those working at the new institutions, there is little time for anything other than marking, preparation and teaching - at London Met, there is currently a management drive towards an 18-hour teaching week - and in my experience, research has generally been confined to fragmented periods of annual leave. Granted, not every student completes - but there can be a plethora of reasons for this, some academic, some financial (have you tried doing a full-time job to support yourself whilst trying to complete a full-time degree course?), some personal (not every student is a nineteen-year-old post-A-level entrant with no family/wider financial commitments). Of course the students are important - most academics would not be in this profession, and in this institution in particular, if they were not committed to working with students, and did not believe in the ideal of widening participation; and if the university falls short of this ideal, it is not for want of trying on the part of the academic and support staff, nor on the part of the students who either complete their studies or - for reasons beyond their control - are unable to complete. However, it is the academic staff, the support staff and the students who are about to suffer the consequences of poor management. There are 400 impending redundancies. As 'Northern Soul' observes, the situation is profoundly depressing. But ' it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings' - and she ain't fat and she ain't singing yet...

I do not think that London Met addressed the key challenges from 2002 of which recruitment and dropout form the core. I do not think that UNL or LGU alone would have addressed them either. I come back to the observations of 'Leeds Met staff and a few others with similar observations.The directors of polys were under managerial constraints imposed by the LEAs like the old ILEA. Once these polys became universities, those constraints were removed and the ramifications are so clear and so devastating. The governors are volunteers and a crafty VC like Roper if the chair of governors is with him, can get away with almost anything, and he has for so many years. If Roper goes, one of his deputies (Aylett) may follow but the rest will stay put. The successor to Roper will come with even stronger set of powers (that will be the price that governors have to pay to get a VC to handle this poison chalice), and he/she will start cleaning the proverbial Augean Stables from day 1. One can visualise what this means.

I know for a fact many of my fellow students i meet and ex students i know have been dropping out due to the heavily inflated cost of living in london, espcially in the suggest accomodation provided by london where it can easily exceed the funding provided to students to live in with no real alternative. For the best part, i think the last thing the uni needs is cut backs, it needs heavy investment and i just hope that my degree course wont be effected or i have wasted a year of my life and a large sum of money with little to show for it

Niles, I can sympathise with you. Perhaps you were cheated by the so called 'London Met agents' in your country who sold London Met to you. The 'used car salesman' comes to my mind. If you had the equivalent of '3 As' at the 'A' level or its equivalent + the overseas fee to go with it, you could have picked just about any one of the top 10 British universities with the exception of the Oxbridge. In London UCL and Imperial comes to mind. You could have even transferred to them in the second year if you had preformed reasonably well at the certificate level of your degree course. London Met Student There are other new universities in England in places which are less expensive than London, but are still at a commuting distance to London. Your maintenance loan can go far in those places. You can still transfer to them in the second semester after a negotiation of favourable credit transfer.

Thanks you Niles for saying it was great, and apologies for having let you down. This is our fear, if we are to see another large number of staff cuts, after several years of voluntary redundancies for those who age made it profitable and a freeze on new hiring, we are only going to hurt the "student experience" even further. If the middle and upper management were to be "rationalised", on the other hand, the opposite would be the case :-)

Let us not forget, 65% of the proposed job cuts will be non-academic PSD staff. Estates, Computing, Security, Admissions, Student Services, etc. The cutting back of these services will also have a knock-on effect to the support services provided to lecturers & students.

How much money could be raised by selling Tower Hill building or Moorgate building? How practical would it be to sell one of them and transfer the personnel & resources to the other (or to Holloway Road)?

I cannot believe that not one person on this forum has identified the real reason that London Met is in such deep water! It is not a simple case of the university handing over 'false figures' but rather that the criteria for a student who has successfully completed their current year of study is outlined differently by HFSCE then by London Met. HFSCE only deem a student to have completed the current year of study IF they have ATTEMPTED (not necessarily passed) ALL AVAILABLE ASSESSMENT COMPONANTS. However, London Met’s Academic regulation allow a student to pass most modules if they achive a minimum of 40% overall on a module, even if they have not attempted all componants, and may progress to the next level of study if the student has passed at least 6 out of 8 modules (with a minimum of 25% in the 2 remaining modules) in the 1st year and at least 7 out of 8 modules (with a minimum of 25% in the 1 remaining module) in the 2nd and 3rd years of their course (giving a total of 14 passes out of 16 modules taken in the second and third years and a minimum of 25% in the remaining 2 modules). There are also occasions when a student is considered for a conditional progression if they have shows that they have made a good effort to pass and are close to meeting the progression criteria, i.e. has passed at least 6 out of 8 modules (with a minimum of 25% in the 2 remaining modules) in the 2nd year, they may then be allowed to progress under the condition that they achieve a total of 14 passes out of 16 modules taken in the second and third years and a minimum of 25% in the remaining 2 modules by the end of their 3rd year in order to qualify for an honours degree. To the best of my knowledge it is on this point of progression criteria that London Met differed with HFSCE, I believe that it is one small line in the rules of qualifying for HFSCE funding and it was not brought to light until HFSCE sent in its auditors last year and they looked over the figures for the last 3 years since HFSCE took over and discovered that London met, as well as a few other universities, have been submitting figures based on students who have progress to the next level of study based on their (London Met’s) Progression criteria rather then HFSCE’s. If anything, many members of staff do feel that someone higher up should have spotted this difference in criteria, especially as all figures have to be signed off by senior management before they can be submitted, but it seems like HFSCE are singling out the Wider Participation Universities, like London Met, rather then attacking the more prestigious Universities who have also handed over incorrect figures. The Government needs to take action and do what it can to help avoid the hundreds of job losses that will result from this mess. We at London Met will do our best to carry on working to support the students and other staff members as best that we can, even though everyone is already doing the work of 2 people. One last note, UNISON and UCU have already put it to the senior management that they should use the £35 million that they have sitting in the bank from the sale of Tufnell Park Halls of Residence to pay off the majority of what they owe HFSCE, but they turned down this suggestion. They also turned down the suggestion that the senior management should not receive their performance related bonus or their pay rise this year as they have proformed so badly, but the said that it was contractual so they must!

In amongst some quite unnecessary and generally ill-informed mud slinging by other commentators, call me ex-LGU makes a very good point. Whatever the outcome of this crisis, Government must address the issue of corporate governance, not just at Londonmet, but at many other new universities. We have seen Roper treat the university as his private fiefdom and there is evidence of a similar attitude at LMU and Nottingham Trent to cite just two. A strong, competent, independent board of Governors who clearly recognise that they are not there to run the university but to supervise the executive are unquestionably capable of effective governance. Unfortunately far too many boards fall short of this ideal. It would appear all too often Governers and senior managers (and indeed the Government) forget that all organisations must be run for the benefit of their beneficial owners. The beneficial owners of a university are those who teach, research and study at the institution. In most Russell Group universities, the staff at least (if not the students) have a significant say in the strategic direction of the institution. In Londonmet and many other new universities this is clearly not the case. I suggest that it is time for a fundamental reform of university governance.

I am a lazy lazy man. I got into London Met by taking one of the government initiatives - an 'Access' course. 9 months of pseudo-school (with all the other college drop-outs) got me my golden ticket into university, rather than taking a 2 year A level course. I rarely attend lectures and seminars and generally do my coursework the night before it's due in. I wasn't even interviewed. I'm still a student at London Met (just) by scraping the bottom of the criteria barrel. Now I'm not too sure if I actually have a point, but let me ask you this; Would I have been challenged in Oxford? How about Cambridge? You bet your balls I would. Now I'm not saying Roper is to blame, neither am I sayig that my p*ss poor slack approach to academia is the rationale behind London Met's problems. However there seems to be a serious lack of a cohesive communication strategy. I know for a fact that this year LM were trying harder to monitor attendance figures with computerised records. Guess what! It didn't work. IT problems that weren't resolved made quick work of any scheme that might boot me out. It just seems like no one cares. Problems are prevalent in every aspect of a London Met students life. From the halls of residence (bullying 'security' guards who smoke in the office) to lecturers who can barely make themselves understood (why appoint someone with poor communication skills in a particularly difficult subject area?) Unfixed terminals/printers/whatever else remain unfixed for days on end. When reported there are no resolutions to these problems, they're just swept under the rug. I'm sure there are horror stories for every university - everyone has their 2 cents, but come on? Real management would iron out these what-would-be quite trivial issues. But left unmanaged, they are not trivial. Now I probably will get a degree (even if it is a douglas hurd) but do I deserve one? Certainly not. The problems with London Met are inherant and there is a counter-culture within the student body that regards the university as an opposition rather than an establishment that we should be working with for a rewarding education. Now I'm not saying 'if the university were a bit more on it, I'd be a better student'. Far from it. My lazy coasting attitude is deeply ingrained and I won't be losing that any time soon. However, for the student that can veer off track a little, London Met is probably not the best place to be. I know I'm probably going to be target of every academic on here who wishes to take their fraustration, but you know what? Do it. At least you'll bust your 'metaphorical load' without picking up a gun.

Rob Thoyts I agree with you about governance. You see, as a poster here said the problem stems from the fact that former polytechnics became universities with directors of polys, released from constraints became masters with governors having only 'light touch'. As you say, even as the Russel Group universities have no problems of this kind, for the sake of treating all universities fairly, the following is suggested. 1. generating an independent pool of governors and allocating them to universities so that they form the majority in the governing bodies. The appointment of the rest of the governors can be left to universities as long as they do not exceed 30% of the total governors. the chair should be from the independent poll of governors. This will remove the VCs suggeting his/her friends which is usually the case. 2. External examiners should be entrusted to ensure that progression and awards are according to HEFCE rules. They should also be given responsibility to check the drop out numbers and ensure that drop outs do not progress. Currently, the external examiners, sit on module boards and awards boards and scrutinise only a limited data. They follow the rules of the university where they are appointed and their reports are done on the forms the university supplies to them. I suggest that the external examiners should report directly to the HEFCE and write the reports based on what HEFCE asks them to do which should include specific details of progression, awards and drop outs. This will necessitate appointing more external examiners per course and per department, paying them better and asking them make additional visits to gather data. The HEFCE then will have data independently collated and can rely on it. [The QAA visits are often very cursory.Hence the responsibility of external examiners]

"house elf":component. "honest student":inherent.

There are the following strands in what you are saying: 1. Progression and awards The rules of progression and awards has been the standard for at least a decade, adopted according to new programme requirements. I do not believe that the HEFCE acted on a narrower difference here. If they did and let out the old universities which used similar interpretation from punishing, London Met can sue the HEFCE. In my experience as a course leader for a number of years, I know that even the LondonMet rules were breached, when despite progression board meetings and decisions, failed students were progressed by UG centre leaders, going against the progression board decisions. The creation of UG centres as separate central entities was a big mistake. I often had to fight with the UG centre leader every time he registered failed students for higher level modules, there by progressing the student, instead of asking the student to repeat the year or registering modules at the same level and no higher. Another problem was,the UG centres register students for NEXT year modules, well BEFORE ( as early as Spring of that year) the yearly resulrts were out. Students, thus registered attended next year even when they failed all exams and did not progress. No student I knowthus progressed dropped back. The protests pitted me against the UG centre, HODs and just about every one in the hierarchy. No other university does the above. This malpractice is unique in London Met. . 2. Assessment components It is possible that here lies the rub. The modules might have been designed withassessment components as sets which need only an overall pass percentage but the requirement that individual components needs to completed (submission of course work etc..) even with an over all pass percentage might have been overlooked in progression. But the UG centre leaders fiddled with this too. 3. The performance bonuses It is not only Roper and his team who will collect the bonus, there are plenty others who will collect a few thousands each as bonuses. They include the HODs, the associate HODs, the subject area leaders and the admission tutors. When the City Campus staff went on strike a few years ago refusing to accept the new contracts post merger, the subject area leaders in that campus also went on strike, the HODs in that campus adoped go slow tactics in sympathy. They all collected performance bonuses!!! 4. The sale of building money The two campuses still remain divided physically and almost all departments Work with split staf between the campuses. That perpetuates the LGU and UNL Legacy. It was a mistake not to house a department fully at North or at City.If it is done, buildings can be sold off and money released for use. 5. I cannot believe that dropout figures were not involved. There has been mass fiddling of drop out figures and non-existent students progressed all the ways up to 3rd year! From 1 above alone, the culprits are UG centre leaders, the HODs, the subject area leaders, the senior registry team Plus Roper and his team.

Dear Anonymous Spelling, To spare myself from the public flagellation that awaits me, I confess that the word "governers" was incorrectly spelt in my previous post and I humbly beg pardon for my unwitting offence.

'Honest Londonmet student' - if you are for real, I'm sure I'm stating the obvious when I say that the only person you have shortchanged here is yourself. If you paid a membership to a gym, then sat around for a year, it would come as no surprise that it had made not a jot of difference. Education is no different - just having a student card doesn't automatically make you an educated person, or make you more employable. Its an opportunity, not a given. Sadly, this is only a small window of opportunity - when else in you life will you again have the chance to spend three years studying something which interests you - and it looks as if you've blown it, and not even realised. So who's the frustrated loser in all this? University is about taking responsibility for your life. Some are up to it, some aren't. On a more general point: Londonmet works with students from a wide range of cultural groups, with a wide range of abilities and attitudes. Yes, it can be very challenging (for both staff and students); and surely those who work here deserve the proper management and facilities they need to do the job effectively? Cutting the workforce isn't the answer.

An honest londonmet student I almost fell down laughing reading what you have posted which is 100% true. I know you are not a real student, but your post brings together the plethora of systemic problems this university has, and how they are being expolited by students. Which is the reason I discoverd in my time at this university,why students chose this university. The picture that you paint also includes recruitment of just about any student citing widening access. Winners and Losers You response is typical response expected from an London University academic staff. London Met recruited students willy nilly and ability to pursue degree level course is the least of all criteria. It is a pity that tax payers support this edifice

From the Londonmet Statuary accounts : 2003 surplus of 2,5mils - 2004 surplus of 3mils - 2005 surplus of 3mils - 2006 Loss of 8,8 mils - 2007 Loss of 12 mils but the sale of a building for 32mils shows surplus of 20mils -------- Total Loss over the period the University has been managed from 2003 to 2007 = -20millions ------ HEFCE wants back 38mils so that makes the Cost of Mismanagement -58 Millions --------- EVEN the sale of a University asset at 32mils profit leaves a TOTAL LOSS of 26 MILLIONS ------ --------------------- And the Governors are happy that the management can get bonuses…. Management can sleep well in the thought that they could have performed even worst say they could have lost 100millions.. therefore their bonuses are well deserved.

Bonuses? Very confused... The senior management get 5 figure bonuses. They are not alone. .The heads and associate heads of depts ( academic and admin) +subject area leaders+ senior registry admin + admission tutors for degrees who recruit the potential drop outs all get from 4-3 figure bonuses. While he first bunch does not deserve it, the second bunch equally do not. The next time if you see your HODs baming senior management, say to him/her that he/she is doing well, thank you Roper.

I think you will find that the amount of any bonus for Course Leaders (mainly main scale SL and PL lecturers) is miniscule compared to Senior Management, HODs and Associate Heads – i.e. hundreds of pounds as opposed to tens of thousands. However, to correct some factual inaccuracies from earlier posts, the union position, explicitly made to senior management, is that all such ‘bonus’ payments should be scrapped before any potential job loss is considered. With regards to academic staff, the longstanding position of UCU is that we are opposed to performance related pay schemes – as we believe they are both divisive and undermine collegiality. One of the outstanding issues from the contract dispute of a couple of years back is precisely that PADAS (the management’s appraisal and performance scheme that originated at UNL) should be scrapped. This is one of a number of issues that were lodged with ACAS for resolution that have still not been addressed by senior management. The position of UCU at London Met is that members should not partake in the ‘award’ (i.e., bonus) element of PADAS while the future of the scheme remains unresolved, and I for one have never ever taken a bonus payment – despite being told repeatedly by my own management that I would be eligible for one. With regards to HoD and Associate Heads there appears to be a misguided attempt to put them in the camp of the majority of staff and then highlight their (amble) failures as also belonging to that of the majority of staff. I think it should be looked at the other way round. Most HoDs, etc (with a few notable exceptions) are firmly in the camp of senior management and are as culpable because of their whole hearted support of such mismanagement, or, in their silent acquiescence to such mismanagement. Feel free to attack them – but what you should actually be attacking them for is their failure to stand up to senior management dictat and protect their staff and students from such incompetency.

Can anyone confirm or deny the rumour that was going around north campus end of last week that Hefce had given Brian Roper the option of either resigning and having the £40m over-payment written off OR staying in post and having the University repay the money and that he opted for the latter?? Also am I right in understanding that the 330 redundancies currently being proposed are to address the £15m reduction in funding for this year onwards ONLY and that the managers have yet to come up with any plan for repaying the £40m??? ISS Minion

No one is talking about bonuses to PLs and SLs. I am a PL and the only extra monety I get is fromthe PADAS outcome which is around 800 pounds for the work I put all year round as a course leader. I am taliking about HODs and subject areas leaders, the latter went on strike a few years ago and still collected bonuses , and sat on PDASA interview for me, who worked on those days of strike. My subject area leader, a moron , collected around 5000 pounds. The HOD a five figure for blessing his City Campus minions to go on strike. The HOD+subject area leaders ( mostly from the City Campus in our case) walked off with generous retirement benefits which will not be available for us now. The union at the City Campus was colluding with that HOD. It turned out that whie the HOD and subject area leaders were attacking Roper and co for our consumption, they were actually in his camp. I do not want this university to go on and if it means I lose my job so be it.

‘London Met staff’ (clearly the same troll as posted previously under ‘Former London Met employee2’ and ‘Norman’ on the Leeds Met THE article) you really do appear to have absolutely nothing constructive to add with regards to the dire situation facing at least 330 members of staff who may soon lose their jobs unless we organise to fight back against these cuts. I can assure you the job losses will be made up of both north-campus and city-campus based staff, both non-academic and academic. I repeat this is not the time for your delusional anti city-campus staff bile – unless of course your real intention is to manufacture sufficient fog to assist management in making these universal cuts? To my mind your interventions are rather akin to going into your non-local Woolworths store just as the job losses were announced and shouting “Serves you right – no one wants to shop here because your sweets are tasteless, and it is all because you have commies working on the pick-n-mix counters. I tried to tell everyone but no one would listen no matter how much overtime and browbeating I did!” Also, given your attempts with regards to the previous THE blog on this subject, if you are going to attack me at least get your facts straight before you inject your invective: As you work in the same faculty as me – you should know all of my teaching is at North Campus, and has been for the last couple of years; I joined the university just months prior to the merger (hardly entrenched LGU); I was also elected (in a contested election – conducted by secret postal ballot) some years later (and only a year post the contract dispute) by the vast majority of ALL faculty staff (not just union members - both city-based and north-based) to be the department (now faculty) representative on Academic Board (prior to Roper and co. removing all non-HoD department staff reps) – I take it you didn’t vote for me then! I have absolutely no animosity re my north campus colleagues, or any reason to have. Most of whom I regard as good friends and valued colleagues and will be doing my damndest to save everyone of their jobs regardless if they are academic or non-academic. I would be more than happy to see Tower Hill, Eden Grove, or any other university buildings sold if it meant that it would save jobs across the whole university (people being more important than empty buildings in my opinion). Now, I will take the sound advice of others who have posted, and stop feeding you – as it seems to being having a very serious effect on your mental wellbeing and I have more important work to do in attempting to save my colleagues jobs.

Shall I call you Mark C? I am not any of those you mention I gave a general picture not mentioning any department and any individuals. I am not a troll ,but some one who was stepped on by your HOD and his minions. But I know why you are fuming at me with insults because I metioned your HOD, the bunker resident who you supported to the hilt and your subject area leaders who you did the same. I and my colleagues rejoiced when the lot were sent home packing. I know my colleagues at North and know what they think of you. Still there is cleaning to be done which we hope the current Dean would do. I do not stoop to your level trading insults. You do not save any one else's job but yours. That my colleagues know well. This tells you what kind of characters the union shop stewards are. As I said,

Before I start, I would like to point out that I have more than adequate A Levels and double the UCAS points required of me to get on my course. I joined the university in 2007 and I have to say I wish that I had of picked a different university to study. I realised this on my first day when two of my lectures only spoke basic English. But I will not go to another university, because the modules I am taught are only half of my studies. I make sure I take the time to study my subject every day. It would just be nice to have CURRENT STAFF who appreciate that there are students who try incredibly hard and want a credible degree and choose not to drop out leaving the university rubbing their hands 3,000 pounds richer. So all these current staff wanting to 'Get of this sinking ship' don't worry, you'll be getting the 'heave-ho' when you loose your job. I for one welcome that, you shouldn't be a lecturer when you don't care about anyone but yourself. But hey, what else were you going to do? You chose to work in this place too, maybe a clear sign you were not good enough for the industry.

'London Met Staff': odd that you choose to remain anonymous whilst putatively 'outing' other, more informed and constructive contributors. You are speaking for no-one other than yourself, and - unless an elected representative - have no right to do so. Please stop posting venomous spam.

venomous spam I have as much right to speak out on the university affair as the so called elective representatives, who use use me and my colleagues as we saw the last time when they went on strike. Just read what Mark posted and every one knows who he is after he spat at me. Who is constructive contributor? Mark? You much be joking. He is sloganising as always. This is a free country and I have freedom of expression and this blog does not belong to you or Mark or the TowerHill staff. I know I am speaking for the entire Noth Staff in my faculty after they were trodden hard bty Mark's city boss and his team of abosolute morons. I just want to ask Mark. Does he get a top up of 3500 pounds compared to Noth staff of his cadre? All his City colleagues do. If he does, then before he sheds crocodile tears for us, why can't he get that levelled for North staff? Simple question. As for you, best stick with him in marching along Holloway Road with cards held high.

What a funny, ridiculous lot you all represent. We have known that Londonmet’s management is appalling for years (they are not necessarily bad people, they just don’t have an idea what “managing” mean) but now suddenly, due to an article on a newspaper and a report in the BBC you plan to be up in arms. Before you start a war that you have already lost, some things that you may want to take into account: A merger, any merger, implies reducing the cost of running a place in a percentage greater than the reduction of the market share that the merger brings about (not the place to explain it, but unless you are dealing with a duopoly a the market share of a merged company is smaller than the sum of the previous two companies when separated). For reasons that somebody needs to explain, vg senior management and the union/s, after the UNL and LGU merger the costs went up instead of down, and part of that costs were in the form of new staff. In the same way, the form that Londonmet calculated its students’ numbers (which according to HEFCE was done incorrectly but I still think that is debatable) and the resulting excess of students, resulted in the university requiring more staff and hiring them. Accordingly, those who are arguing that the university has been mismanaged for so many years (for which they have a valid point) are also saying that many of their colleagues that have been hired since the merge have never been necessary (less reported students would have mean less staff too) but don’t have the guts to say so and believe that cutting managers’ bonuses would hide that fact. But what is probably more appalling, especially appalling coming from “educated” people, is how their anger (probably due to their frustration with their own incapacity to do something else and move to a different institution if that is what they want) makes them behave in such a way that they keep being pawns in some bigger political games where the staff and/or students wellbeing and interests are completely irrelevant: for example, the contractual disputes of the past were nothing more than a power showdown that NATFHE needed to enter into its own merger with a better hand, taking into account that what the university was imposing into all the lecturers was a contract that NATFHE had negotiated with UNL (against the wishes of a lot of lecturers), and now what is at stake is the abandonment of the widening participation agenda and the punishment of those whose embrace it unreservedly. Does anyone seriously think that the government is trying (or has the moral authority) of punish those that have misused funds (since we don’t have evidence, you can choose whether it was by mistake or by mischief)? Has nobody realized that people are planning to participate in demonstrations and asking for the resignation (or sacking) of management that has not performed properly but used the money in things that are there and are tangible, but look motionless when the same government that is requesting the reimbursement in question hands out hundreds of billions to bankers that have wasted everybody’s money in supercars, foreign villas and champagne? Where are the university’s employees and students demonstrating against the request of reimbursement in times that every industry that has been mismanaged gets a bailout? I have not reasons to believe that those saying that are lecturers are lying, but if what is written in previous messages is a sample of the critical thinking of lecturers in Londonmet, we probably deserve the redundancies…

Dear ‘London Met staff’, OK, as you have asked me a direct question I will respond with a direct answer. Yes, I do indeed get the extra £3,700 (to be precise) so-called market supplement as a city-based staff member at the time of merger. Also note, north-based staff at the time of merger got three additional progression points (and thus this was consolidated into their basic pay and was therefore pensionable, unlike city-based staff). However, as you clearly do not know, at the time, and on record, I argued strongly against the introduction of the so-called supplement (and have argued since with the university senior management for full harmonisation across the faculty) in such an ad-hoc manner. Precisely for the same reason I am opposed to performance related pay – it is, and you certainly prove the point, divisive. I would happily, and I’m sure most of my colleagues would agree, forgo such an additional payment if the money were to be spent on saving colleagues jobs. Indeed, one of the things we have been arguing as a union at London Met is that they adopt the national HE Pay Framework Agreement – that way all staff (both academic and non-academic) would be on a national, transparent, pay spine – i.e. I would like to see all ad-hoc additional payments replaced with a standard pay scale. This, unfortunately, is something London Met management refuse point-blank to do – they are, as far as I’m aware, the only university in the UK to refuse to implement this nationally agreed framework. Incidentally, they were given many millions of pounds from HEFCE towards its implementation – which they then spend building up the HR department! With regards to be own job and position: I am at the top of the SL scale and have been for some four to five years, I run both an MSc and a BSc course, and I lead some eight modules across the academic year. I played a major role in validating some 14 new MSc and BSc courses last summer – under the direction of the new DVC. The reason for stating this is to put my next sentence in to perspective. The DVC explicitly asked me to apply for one of the new Associate Head positions on the basis of that work. I refused, and the reason I did so, and stated this explicitly to him and to a number of other colleagues, is that I would refuse to assist in the carrying out of mechanisms/schemes that would ultimately result in finding means to increase staff workloads, reduce their professional autonomy (what little we have left), and justify staff cuts. Unlike you, I actually know which side I am on, and also unlike you, I have been directly offered jobs at other so-called ‘better’ universities that I have turned-down precisely because I do give a damn about our students and the provision of good and decent education for all. Not the paternalistic so-called ‘student-centered’ (in reality student dumping) that our management wish us to undertake, and not the elitist exclusion of less well qualified and under represented students others would like us to adopt.

Mark You say "you should know all of my teaching is at North Campus". Then why do you have your office at Tower Hill?

time to stop nagging. You couldn't be more right. Get over it, I worked at LGU, left before it went down, made a load of money and now life in Spain. Oh, how life out of the academia thrills me. WELL DONE LECTURERS AT LONDON MET, PLEASE KEEP SHOWING US ALL HOW INSPIRING YOU ARE!

Why do you think most of us did not get three progression points at the time of merger? I can produce colleagues from North who will easily refute this. This another mealy maouth talk of City Campus staff to justify their differential You need to correct your facts. A few were picked a few years before merger and were given some increments as staff was leaving and moving to another new university. This was a good 18 months before even merger news was air. Don't mix this with the unfair top up you maintianed after the merger and after your strike. Indeed, the then HOD of Maths at North rightly commented this in many meetings but brished aside by the bunker resident who you supported to the hilt. The Ass Dean's piistion is for a year, you had to compete with other candidates and there was no guarantee that you would get it. We want this to be advertised externaly by the way, when the time comes. I ask the question every North faculty mem wants to ask you? Since you have all teaching hours at the North, why do you maintain your office at Tower Hill? Why not join us in the hospital wards at the North Tower Block?

Please, 'Londonmet staff', give it a rest. The issue is not the merger. That happened a long time ago. Nor is this the place to air your personal grudges against your colleagues. As university staff, we are - through no fault of our own - facing a major crisis; and those staff who want the university to survive it need to work together. If you are so unhappy working here, it would seem that the option of voluntary redundancy will soon be available; and maybe this is something you might want to consider. For those hoping to go on, we need to be looking at constructive ways forward.

Mark An error: It should say " why do you think... " etc.. Sorry for the typo. According to you, I am a Former London Met Employee and a Troll. Which means that I am not at London Met according to you!!

Venomous Spam London Met is beyond any redemption. I like my North Staff who were bullied and cajoled by morons from the City Campus. Who knows if the redundancies go through the axe may fall on you first. Stick with Mark who will save you. The carping mostly comes from City Campus who constantly dream about LGU rising and an insult to North. Do not use strong arm tactitics. If you don't like the postings, please do not read. He said I am a Troll and if that is true I am not in London Met. Onl

The rumour that was going around north campus that HEFCE had given Brian Roper the option of resigning and having the £40m over-payment written off OR staying in post and having the University repay the money. He opted for the latter.

Venomous spam Some name! Instead of repeating the union mantra that the senior management should go and all the rest of the staff should stay which is silly as it is not going to happen since problems go much deeper. Just tell us how the current crisis should be addressed. Simply changing one set of management with another set won't do, while the systemic rot stays and spreads. Do you agree that London Met should slim down, faculties should become leaner, buildings like Tower Hill and Moorgate should be sold? It is not business as usual with simple senior management swap and any one who has a few brain cells recognises that a new senior management will have to drastically restructure London Met. I know you will simply repeat saving jobs etc. .etc.. which is a no brainer.

Confirmed. That is interesting. I heard some say the same. Busy time for the likes of Mark and Venomous Spam. Could we see marches and picketing in Holloway Road, exam invigilation boycotts, pen down as far as answer scripts are concerned in May?. A sense of deja vu. Or Will they bite the bullet and ensure that students get their lectures, their exams and their degrees. The platitudes from them would be cuts will be bad for students. Yes, but strikes and not marking papers are worse.

what if Roper does take VR? What sort of redundancy package will he get on his £250K salary? £2.5 million severance pay + final-salary pension. He'll not have to worry about getting another job. And oncehe's gone, the VR offer will be closed & everyone else only get compulsary redundancy.

HEFCE and governors know VR with severance pay is much too expensive, and sets a precedence as a new VC would like Roper's salary match, perks etc.. etc.. and no gurantee that he/she will lift London Met from the hole it is in, they may go for 'devil we know' and let Roper do the the cuts. HEFCE may even offer him a few millions if he pays off the claw back sum. He will stay

I hope that this is not the strategic thinking that we are teaching to our students. If the VC goes, whoever comes to take his place will have no responsibility on the current state of affairs, so he/she will be able to (and certainly will do) carry out far deeper cuts than those that the current management can. So, be careful what you ask for...you may get it.

Tower Hill & Moorgate are both valuable peices of real-estate. It would have made more sense to sell them 5 years ago when property prices were peaking. Now, they have probably lost a lot of value, so it would make more sense to or redevelop as hotels, or clear them out and rent/lease the office space out (5 or 10 year lease), thus making up for the £15mil yearly hefce clawback, and alleviating the necessity for staff redundancies. Having Roper resign would mean hefce write-off the outstanding £40mil, and bob's yer uncle - all sorted.

yes we have:- the VR severance pay would be offset by the fact that HEFCE will write off the £40 million debt. How would that be too expensive?

I go with 'Time to stop nagging'. A new VC will certainly carry out much deeper cuts, streamline faculties and will like a manageable London Met. It has happened elswhere and it will happen here.

Why all the moaning, it was obvious to anyone who worked/works at LondonMet that this outcome was inevitable. The University will become smaller or cease to exist and people will lose their jobs. Yes the senior management have been woeful, but they will leave with marvellous pensions and lump sums, they know it and so do you. The only benefit will be that they are so tarnished that they will never fine gainful employment in this sector again. So for those of you who have the skills the market wants, don't worry. The lazy ones: the gravy train as just hit the buffers. If you still need to vent your spleen, get an anonymous web-email account and tell the SMG and board of governors what you really think. This is not the place, but it is fun. So to all my friends and foes at City and North, it's been emotional., but thank god it's nearly over.

Does any seriously think that HEFCE has the power to write-off £40 million in exchange of somebody resignation? I do understand that the bitterness of some people has no limits, but stop making a fool of yourself and treating others like idiots. If anyone giving entity to such a ridiculous rumour is really a lecturer and it has a bit of shame left should resign immediately. If a student repeats such stupidity that denotes lack of understanding of what evidence means and complete ignorance of the application of common sense to known situations would fail the module, so a lecturer doing the same should not be a lecturer.

The University does not own Moorgate it's a pepper corn rent. and Tower Hill as very restrictive planning consents. The only real assets are the staff and students and they're going fast.

marcus rutheford, you are almost right, but the point that you are missing is that all the demos, articles in THE and BBC (were not spontaneous, the information was pushed toward them) and public nagging tarnish more all of our careers and our students prospects than the senior managers' ones (who are in most cases close to retirement and have in their banks the equivalent of several decades of a lecturer's salary). There are those that think that they are doing the right think by doing all what they are doing to get Roper's head, but they are only cutting ours...

The London Met more lazy ones now and any one any good has left. I should know as I am a student and I am transferring to another uni, as are many in our class.

I enrolled at londonmet 2 years ago and decided to transfer to another university very soon after starting my course. It quickly became apparent that there were too many unqualified & overseas students who lacked the ability to study (or in many cases to even communicate in english adequately). at the necessary level. Sadly it was not just the students,as a few lecturers also seemed to have a very poor grasp of their subject & communication skills. Londonmet is a bargain-basement rubbish university and has no place in HE. It should have stayed as a polytechnic.

London Met staff We believe in Mark. He will save our jobs. Unlike you who have no where else to go, our Mark though had chances galore, stayed to save us. Get that! Just one problem. It appears Roper is also staying. Back to the drawing board!!!

I attended the induction week and met students at the reception thrown by the uni. Initially, I wanted to home after the day as I had to commute next day to London again and get myself digs. Decided to stay for the reception. Shocked to learn majority of students from Asia and Africa, did not have proper GCSE pass, said all other universities turned them down asking them to come back after completing A levels. The lecturers had poor grasp of English I came home shocked and complained to my parents. My dad set to work on the telephone next day and I got a place Brunel. It is disgrace that London Met calls itself university.

What uni are you at now? Old or ex-poly? Are you still frustrated, or just bitter memories from 2 years ago? How do you know London Metropolitan should have stayed as a poly? How old were you when the govt decided to abolish polys? Were they supposed to say "no" and keep on being a poly after they ceased to exist?

dear frustrated student "Were they supposed to say "no" and keep on being a poly after they ceased to exist" Yes. In fact the poly is the right status for this university. Too late, it is slipping into plug hole.

be they many, or one in different disguises :-)

I am pleased to see that this has generated such interest. From my 'student experience' I have learned that London Met is a very brutal institution. I have, due to mental health issues, been unable to attend lectures during this semester. Despite making my course leader, all of my module leaders, and most importantly the UG and registry aware of this, I have not once received an offer of support (I do not believe this is due to any failures of academic staff) and am currently receiving threatening letters (three to date) to cover tuition fees that I have already paid. One of these was dated three weeks before I actually received it. Without my difficulties, I would be on track to achieve a first class hons, but I now have a double kick in the teeth (expulsion and bailiffs). Roper's cronies will be reading this (probably seems obvious, but bear with me). I once posted a single critical comment concerning the university, roughly a year ago, on a social networking website, in a thread of pathetically little consequence. I was taken aback when I was confronted by admin staff about this. I also noticed that much of wikipedia's content on the lecturer's strike was repeatedly deleted by an IP address clearly from within the institution. I am well aware of all of the industrial relations, union disputes and so forth that the university has engaged in. I have found the management culture to be bullish, confrontational and bullying in nature. I believe that there is an active strategy to undermine any student solidarity that could form and oppose university policy - I have seen official university documents in my time that corroborate my view on this strategy. Clearly it's no longer about the students, more corporate continuity in my view.

don't feed the troll(s) For you we are all trolls.Were you the one who struggled to answer my question in that reception evening, which opened my eyes. If you do not realise that the ground is caving under your feet, care to stop a student in your 1st floor cafeteria and ask?

Clearly there are issues to be discussed and debated. I urge all affected stakeholders to gather in a constructive open session. There is much confusion about the real source of problems (and how far back they go) and this has lead to the spread of rumours and unwarranted accusations. Students have also been left out of the loop. Pride and ego must be left behind in these dire times and I for one attach much importance to humble change. The bottom line? Saving the University from failure and re-establishing it as a credible HE provider, for the benefit of both students and staff. Unlike the troubled economy, our problems can be sorted out with a clear decisive plan, but only if it has the full support of everyone involved, which is why I deplore all those affected to gather together and discuss the situation at-hand; to agree on constructive solutions to these grave problems. Admittedly considerably clichéd, but still not yet out of style: Yes we can

Hi 'Student?' concerning the repeated editing of the Wikipedia article, the IP address you refer to is that of the desktop computer of Mr John McParland the University Secretary (and Clerk to the Board of Governors incidentally).

Agree 99% ! But deplore -> implore maybe ? :-)

Implore instead of 'deplore' in above post. Sorry!

Apologies for the 'freudian slip' :-)

I remember when people talked of student recruitment as "standing in the street with a big net". I've seen entry standards lowered to whatever level required to meet targets. It is no surprise the figures have been over stated (something likely to happen only if there is a high drop out rate, perhaps a consequence of unethical recruitment). I feel sorry for any innocent staff who suffer, but if Roper feels pain it will be his just rewards. I bet "Nellie" will make sure she looks free from guilt.

The LondonMet approach to student education is to cram in as many "bums on seats" as possible (taking students who are rejected from anywhere else) to get the funding from hefce, and not care about the quality of academic standards. The level of academic staff also reflects this.

What a mountain of non-sense you are writing here...lets go to some facts: the university, as any university or big institution, uses dynamic IP addresses, so to claim that an IP address belongs to a particular desktop is simply a lie (you would need access to the central server log to know what PC was connected to which address in any particular moment. Needless to say that that information is not available in any public place), which leads me to other lies. Whoever is posing as student(s) clearly forget that lecturers deal with students every day making it easy that most of the postings do not belong to students (the language of most of these "students" post looks quite the same). In any case, while bashing lecturers as they are doing, they supporting the idea that many need to be redundant and forgetting that Londonmet's faculty has won more teaching awards than most universities in London. By the way, if somebody's father can get a person a place in a university by "working the phone", ones needs to doubt about the entry standards of that university...so, whoever is writing to carry out some personal vendetta (or to express his/her anger), I suggest a cold shower and then let us those who care about the institution and its students do our jobs.

"Time to stop nagging", you don't know what you're talking about boy. North campus assigns static IP addresses to all staff and student workstations albiet via DHCP. I should should know sonny, I work there.

Time to stop nagging - you are incorrect. I worked for SYSS at LMU, and can verify the assertion from ISS Minion that IP addresses are tied to each desktop PC. This is for IT auditing so that the user can be identified. SYSS was always one of the most overstaffed departments and will be facing the majority of compulsory redundancies.

Time to stop nagging- I'm a real student :D

I don't know what IP assigning policy LMU uses. What I do know is that a simple tracert command on the IP address concerned (recorded by wikipedia) returns hops that lead to the institution, specifically north campus. This in turn leads me to believe that the university monitors and actively intervenes. I have no idea who does this, but besides the internet, there is obviously an active PR/damage limitation machine operating across all media. This is not my main problem with the university of course, but it does contribute to my view that upper management have to spend a lot of time covering their arses. This clearly cannot be a good thing.

"ex LGU SYSS staff" I'm afraid you are quite right - ISS was and still is very over staffed - to make matters worse 90% of the talented people left for one reason or another over the last eighteen months, leaving the munters and some hopelessly inexperienced managers. We had some expensive consultants in for a few months to develop a transformation plan to completely restructure the department but this was abandoned when all the key staff went elsewhere and the new head of department realised the people she had left weren't capable of implementing it. I've no doubt you could easilly outsource most of what IT does (or rather doesn't) do, maintenance and support for example.

"Student?" you're absolutely correct on all points. Dealing with the media used to be the preserve of the Marketing department - it is now handled for the most part by legal people in Human Resources.

ISS Minion: stop the inflammatory non-sense. So, you are from Syss, you know who handles media and you also know that there are "legal people" in HR...no wonder how the IT services are not the best around (but I assume that is senior managers fault too). In HR there are not many "legal people" and those that do, are useless, so media is dealt with by people of PR (not HR). Student?if you think that having a media strategy is "not a good thing", well the bad news is that every university has a team to deal with that and not necessarily to cover somebody's misdeeds (although it could be the case), but to try to keep the reputation of the institution from those who think that their anger and incompetence allows them to taint everything, so when you graduate you can get a job. People here reminds me of those that when the train is late try to cause some damage to the train (like cutting the seats), forgetting that the train company managers travel in Mercedes and the users are the only ones paying the consequences...As I said hours ago, others have mismanaged things in UK and the government bails them out, here the mismanagement could be attributed to mistakes and wrong policies but you all need a head...pathetic. The day you organize a demo to claim for the 500 billion from our taxes that go to pay Ferraris and yatchs for the bankers, I'll join you, until then, either put your shoulder to support the institution we work for (and then the students that will need to look for a job with the university's degree) or just quit and shut up. Time to sleep because some of us have to mark so our students get a decent education.

ISS Minion, thank you for confirming my doubts about the IT dept. I have met some of your managers and it goes a long way to explaining the problems you are having.

As a fairly recently ex Londonmet PL I can only add that this comes as no great surprise. The tragedy of Londonmet is that the excellent are punished with ever greater workloads and monitoring of 'desktime' (ie. it's 10 past 10, why are you late?) and the useless are rewarded by being shunted around the place and forgotten about. The utterly useless change the course they teach every year or so as their line managers despair of their awful teaching and student support, etc. There are innumerable examples, but they include the SL who posted office hours of 1.00-1.15 every Tuesday for students to come and see them, and the various staff who live in towns such as Bristol and Derby and 'work from home' every Monday and Friday - whilst also providing questionable quality from Tuesday to Thursday. Furthermore, there is a whole level of management - and I am talking mostly about ALs here - that perform no function other than to block any risky but potentially lucrative initiatives, watch the clocks, limit scholarly activity time, fuss about how much the notebooks bought by admin staff cost and generally act as a hurdle to the happy and innovative running of areas. My prediction is that this relatively useless tier of management will escape the coming cull unscathed as they perform Roper/Link's tasks to order. Many of the academic victims will be blameless but lost on the grounds that they are running short courses and won't have UG students in need of support for a further 2 or 3 years - something that will save the skin of a lot of the most unutterably useless who have been shunted off to first year modules in the hope that they won't cause too much trouble. We are talking any courses of one year or less in length - bridging courses, masters degrees, access, language etc. There was so much that I loved about Londonmet - the superb quality and dedication of most of the staff in all areas; the incredible stories of many of the students and the fantastic relationships we could build up with them as their courses progressed; the incredible - and underpaid - support and admin staff; and the frequent sense of working in an environment where new opportunities were being offered for the first time to so many. But there was so much to despair about as well. My partner did a BA at the Met and had one teacher who could not speak English, basically. Classes were cancelled weekly without explanation; rooms were frequently double-booked or even triple-booked; lecture theatre rows collapsed; numerous problems occurred with the IT rooms; opportunities for tutorials were very limited. And so on. Another 'dodgy' thing is the 'pet projects' of senior management, like the ridiculous relationship with Cuba and all of the thousand being wasted on that - come on, when is Cuba going to be a source of income? And when it does recover economically, who expects Londonmet to be the destination of choice over Florida or California? Another corrupt project is the bringing in of high class sports performers from countries like Mexico to play hockey or football or some such but who do not in any way have the English language or academic ability to be on their courses. I have met great hockey players who can barely say 'hello' on degree courses. Corruption? In conclusion, it is with great sadness that I read about the woes of Londonmet - an institution that I love and that gave me incredible opportunities in my career and fantastic colleagues - on the whole. At the end of the day, whatever the detailed to-and-fro about the knock on effects, the time has come for Roper and his immediate gang to call it a day and give the university fresh hope. Yes there will be teething pains; but what is in place today is a grave injustice that needs righting. The buck surely stops somewhere. This is not the time for North/City campus bickering; this is the time for a united uprising against failed management - from VC all the way to AL level. Failure to act now will result in the best being lost and the student experience becoming even worse. I wish every good hard-working academic and support staff member at Londonmet the very best and hope that no-one who does not deserve it becomes the victim of the failures of the useless. And of course, that poor redundancy decisions do not negatively affect the students who are deservingly - despite some cruel comments about them on this thread - struggling to get their Degrees.

As a fairly recently ex Londonmet PL I can only add that this comes as no great surprise. The tragedy of Londonmet is that the excellent are punished with ever greater workloads and monitoring of 'desktime' (ie. it's 10 past 10, why are you late?) and the useless are rewarded by being shunted around the place and forgotten about. The utterly useless change the course they teach every year or so as their line managers despair of their awful teaching and student support, etc. There are innumerable examples, but they include the SL who posted office hours of 1.00-1.15 every Tuesday for students to come and see them, and the various staff who live in towns such as Bristol and Derby and 'work from home' every Monday and Friday - whilst also providing questionable quality from Tuesday to Thursday. Furthermore, there is a whole level of management - and I am talking mostly about ALs here - that perform no function other than to block any risky but potentially lucrative initiatives, watch the clocks, limit scholarly activity time, fuss about how much the notebooks bought by admin staff cost and generally act as a hurdle to the happy and innovative running of areas. My prediction is that this relatively useless tier of management will escape the coming cull unscathed as they perform Roper/Link's tasks to order. Many of the academic victims will be blameless but lost on the grounds that they are running short courses and won't have UG students in need of support for a further 2 or 3 years - something that will save the skin of a lot of the most unutterably useless who have been shunted off to first year modules in the hope that they won't cause too much trouble. We are talking any courses of one year or less in length - bridging courses, masters degrees, access, language etc. There was so much that I loved about Londonmet - the superb quality and dedication of most of the staff in all areas; the incredible stories of many of the students and the fantastic relationships we could build up with them as their courses progressed; the incredible - and underpaid - support and admin staff; and the frequent sense of working in an environment where new opportunities were being offered for the first time to so many. But there was so much to despair about as well. My partner did a BA at the Met and had one teacher who could not speak English, basically. Classes were cancelled weekly without explanation; rooms were frequently double-booked or even triple-booked; lecture theatre rows collapsed; numerous problems occurred with the IT rooms; opportunities for tutorials were very limited. And so on. Another 'dodgy' thing is the 'pet projects' of senior management, like the ridiculous relationship with Cuba and all of the thousand being wasted on that - come on, when is Cuba going to be a source of income? And when it does recover economically, who expects Londonmet to be the destination of choice over Florida or California? Another corrupt project is the bringing in of high class sports performers from countries like Mexico to play hockey or football or some such but who do not in any way have the English language or academic ability to be on their courses. I have met great hockey players who can barely say 'hello' on degree courses. Corruption? In conclusion, it is with great sadness that I read about the woes of Londonmet - an institution that I love and that gave me incredible opportunities in my career and fantastic colleagues - on the whole. At the end of the day, whatever the detailed to-and-fro about the knock on effects, the time has come for Roper and his immediate gang to call it a day and give the university fresh hope. Yes there will be teething pains; but what is in place today is a grave injustice that needs righting. The buck surely stops somewhere. This is not the time for North/City campus bickering; this is the time for a united uprising against failed management - from VC all the way to AL level. Failure to act now will result in the best being lost and the student experience becoming even worse. I wish every good hard-working academic and support staff member at Londonmet the very best and hope that no-one who does not deserve it becomes the victim of the failures of the useless. And of course, that poor redundancy decisions do not negatively affect the students who are deservingly - despite some cruel comments about them on this thread - struggling to get their Degrees.

Everyone isfully aware that the big problem is the arrogant bullying management style of the Senior Management, which is unfortunately learned and emulated down the foodchain through middle management onto the ordinary staff. Progresson and advancement through ability & merit is very rare as experience shows that sycophantic brown-nosing, and cronyism is the only real way to secure ones position.

Not at Londonmet anymore: "There are innumerable examples, but they include the SL who posted office hours of 1.00-1.15 every Tuesday for students to come and see them, and the various staff who live in towns such as Bristol and Derby and 'work from home' every Monday and Friday - whilst also providing questionable quality from Tuesday to Thursday. Furthermore, there is a whole level of management - and I am talking mostly about ALs here - that perform no function other than to block any risky but potentially lucrative initiatives, watch the clocks, limit scholarly activity time, fuss about how much the notebooks bought by admin staff cost and generally act as a hurdle.." I can give other examples where the staff like ALs and some SLs too were /are working for other employers during their office hours at London Met,using the university facilities. I knew quite a few City academic staff who 'fixed' their teaching hours after 9:00 or 10:00 and left for home at 4:00 and keeping Fridays free. Similarly I knew some North staff who enjoyed 2 daysbreak each week. Not only ISS was/is overstaffed, other academic departments too. In my deprtment we were running courses at North and City which could be easily combined into single courses in one site. London Met could save a lot of utilties bill by combining departments which are split between North and City. This will improve,'them and us' mentality that still persists. The student numbers are clearly down although the class lists showed ghost students. I believe what the' students ' post here. London Met requires a thorough shake up at all levels. Given the poor standard of incoming students, I see no purpose in keeping London Met this large and this diversified. There are 4 new universities besides London Met in easy commuting distances- Middlesex, Westminster, SouthBank, East London which have spaces in their courses which are similar these days. I would say close London Met and distribute students to these universities.

I worked as an academic in London Met for a few years sufficient to know about its management, staff structure and students. Some one took exception to a student posting which suggested London Met should have remained a polytechnic. This poster said what I felt. Although there were sprinkling of good staff academic and administrative, before I left, these were leaving almost every week. I discovered that a few staff in my department were recruited through the work permits route (it appears the Home office issued them almost for asking), and really except their paper qualifications, there were worse than ones who can recruited. The HPLs were on the whole did good job and it was puzzling why they were not absorbed as full-time staff, thus cutting the necessity to go for work permits. If one digs deep one would find at a few of these work permit holders should not be in Britain at all. They arrived to this country on scholarships paid for by British govt on the clear and signed understanding that they will return to their native countries. The HODs encouraged cronyism promoted staff on that basis, They refused to close courses which did not recruit and often kept students who dropped out, on class lists of courses. The student numbers and quality were coming down fast. We recruited overseas students in all sorts of ways-through agents who simply provided ‘bodies of students’, Students from countries like Nigeria and in Asia who for purposes of counting were students but were really here to work and disappeared after a few weeks but still in class lists, failed students in HE colleges who moved up to degree courses through clearing offers. We gave admission to just about any one who bothered to telephone clearing hot lines. We all know the case of a Nigerian student who was offered admission to multiple courses, and collected a nice pot of loan income and discovered when tried to take it to the extreme. The VC and senior management had no idea what went on within departments and HODs saw to it that they did not. The senior management had no vision except to expand the university side ways almost every where. Signed MOUs with all sorts of countries and institutions overseas which landed students who should not be in any university. The VC and senior management paid themselves generously. They also rewarded HODs who would not get even junior positions in other universities. People may argue about the recent RAE results and say London Met has done so wonderfully. So are 98% of all new universities!! This RAE exercise was a political exercise. If London Met for example cannot attract minimally qualified students for its UG courses, saying that it got a few 4* and 3* and hence conducts world class research is lunacy to the extreme. With its woes occurring every a few years all serious and arising out of mismanagement at all levels, lacking credibility, wasting tax payers money, awarding degrees which carries as much value as high street bank’s shares, it is time to pull the shutter down.

"put your shoulder to support the institution we work for" "Time to sleep because some of us have to mark so our students get a decent education." Are you talking about London Met ? Decent education at London Met? is this a pipe dream?

"Time to stop nagging" and others advocating a banking-sector bailout of London Met by the government - you're either hopelessly naive, delusional, or simply not paying attention; as recently as October 2008 the new minster of state for higher education, David Lammy, stated that in his view there were too many universities in the UK and that they need to stop relying so heavily on government funding so don't expect any rescue from that quarter. Ultimately the market will decide.

Mr Campbell, your incessant denunciation of anyone who expresses opinion contrary to your own blinkered world-view as a 'troll' has become as tiresome as it is predicable...

London Met staff mostly the union junkies who are calling for bank-style bail out forget that the government can live with the demise of London Met with staff losses, as students will find places in other new universities in London which will warmly welcome them as there is so much slack in their courses. Survival of London Met is not critical to higher education in London, let alone in this country. In fact, it will trigger England-wide rationalisation of the new universities sector. After crossing one new university, closing another delinquent new university or a few of them will be an obvious next step. We are hearing that HE colleges are lobbying the government to put necessary act in place to give them degree awarding powers, at the Bachelor’s degree level to begin with. If this happens, London Met will take the first hit as its proportion of UG entrants are from colleges and the local college will slice off a market here. London Met students pool is from low end of school and college leavers and overseas candidates who use London Met to come and work in Britain. The recession and govt change in the near future will certainly tighten up student entry visas. Whichever way one argues, London Met will shrink in the first instance as the first round of job cuts will lead to other rounds and to serious shake out. From there, it is any one’s guess.

Mr Troll your incessant denunciation of anyone who expresses opinion contrary to your own blinkered world-view as a union junkie as become as tiresome as it is predicable. There are plenty of hard working non-union members who are optimistic that London Met can be turned around, and who were hoping for some decent debate in this comments forum. But the quantity of anonymous negative comments makes this impossible. You win.

London Met employee back (many blogs) ago: as someone above said 'don't feed the troll' (Liberated student - you didn't understand) - and here we all are, turning in on ourselves (well, all the usual naysayers doing what they do best) when it's the funding council is the problem -retrospectively applying rules that by their nature, mean that 50% in higher education was never part of the plan - if we had given them the 50% - they couldn't have paid for it! (Bank-style-bail-out above - you mean FE not HE by the way). London Met is nothing like an FE college and deserves to exist in the same way as South Bank, East London and the rest. It's there to give people a chance. Those that don't want to buy into that - and you've outed yourselves above - should get out. Those that want to stay - yes pecan - or 'YES WE CAN'!

Not a union member You know well that I am not a troll from my inside knowledge how London Met recruits etc. . You guys also accused 'glad I got out' as a troll. I commented on certain union members who I can identify calling for 'bank syle bail out'. Wake up from your delirious dream of turning around London Met. It might be easier to turn around Sun rise and Sun set directions. Since when did you contribute any debate about London-wide higher education provision except accusing us as trolls. If you have not realised and is burying your head in sand, it is no longer the question of saving London Met but the question that will have to be addressed by the govt will ne how to rationalise London-wide higher education sector given that london is saturated with old and new universities plus overseas universities which have presence.

Well said Bob and all those who posted positive comments. Let's have debate but let's be constructive. I implore my colleagues to end this pernicious naval-gazing and to back our institution and to return it to its rightful place as an educator for the marginalised of London and elsewhere. For those students not able to get into Imperial (and that includes most) we have a state-of-the-art science centre that is relevant, that provides a service to the community and that gives our students a starting chance. Begone those who believe in that! As the colleague above said - yes we can!

London Met employee You are deluding yourself by thinking that funding council is the problem. The funding council did not fiddle the data but were the receiving end of a scam which saw millions emptied from their coffers. If it was you who did that when you appled for a mortgage, you would be looking at criminal charges. The funding council, the victim of this scam is simply asking back the money that London Met deceptively hived off from them. You must be so fossilised as not to understand that HE sector is as saturated as FE sector in London and some FE colleges, the nearest one in Holloway Road does not think that London Met is any good and hence has established stronger links with City University and UCL, eventhough the principal of that college was one of the governors of London Met when he piloted these two links. I have heard him saying that no purpose is served by sending his students to London Met. If you had done any recruitment work, you would understand that very few students come to London Met from that college or indeed from any of the sixth form schools in the nearby boroughs. I do not have to be a naysayer, when London Met is not even the nth choice for these school and college leavers. FYI South Bank, East London and the rest did not price the funds off HEFCE through fictitious data. Unlike London Met, the governors of East London acted promptly to send their VC to take a long leave, despite HODs and Deans howling. As far as me getting out, you form your own opinion.

To all those who have expressed the view that 'overseas students come to work in Britain':- This may be true for a small percentage of students, but the majority of us cannot be equated to academically poor local college dropouts. Also please remember that your weaker, incapable 'foreign' student might be an asylum seeker or local resident. Most of us work hard to get a good degree and pay bucket loads for it I studied CIE A Levels overseas and got 3 As and a C. I studied IGCSE (CIE and Edexcel) and got 5A*s, 2As and a B. I'm a native english speaker. International students are full-fee paying students, contributing 8-12 thousand pounds to London Met, and much more towards London accommodation and the local economy. I'm a final year undergraduate student who has spent over 30 thousand pounds on his education (although admittedly lower than the 45k needed for older unis). I have retired parents to repay. I posted above that I'm currently unhappy with the quality of education being imparted and will return home having felt 'cheated', however I would like to stress that, at least in my case, I was very satisfied with the quality of education when I first joined (albeit shocked with the lack of lab equipment). That was before all the good lecturers were forced to leave and were replaced by foreign lecturers with very poor communication skills, retired staff, and unqualified personnel being promoted to positions of authority. My new course leader has a bachelor's degree. He has never worked in industry in his life, nor has he carried out any research. I often have to argue in class about outdated methods being taught (we were taught to reject them as false and outdated by those few good men who have now sadly left). Although I'm graduating now, I would very much like all these problems to be solved, as this affects directly, the reputation of the University and ergo the jobs its alumni can get. In conclusion, please do not stereotype international students: we work hard and help keep London Met afloat and aren't all moonlighting in your local curry house.

"For those students not able to get into Imperial (and that includes most) we have a state-of-the-art science centre that is relevant" Why would these students come to London Met? I just attended 4 days of induction and realised what a mistake I made. I went to Brunel. A few others with me who realised their folly went to U Herts, U Westmister and even to QMW and U Birmingham who were happy to have their BBC A level grades. In QMW and U Birmingham they were taught by real scientists with track records. While chatting with a few lecturers, in reception evening at London Met, I realised that the science students have very poor A level entry grades if at all any[Imperial needs at least AAB and UCL AAC for sciences, the other better unis quickly snap up ones with BBC grades] Sir, I beg to differ with you. You may have shiny a new building and might have spent millions on it but buildings and equipment alone do not form the intensive knowledge centre that science studies require. I found that the so called superlab is one huge market place, and whatever the original aims were, students in that lab spend more time in chats than in experiments.

Niles - and other students - sorry to hear your later time at the university was not what it should've been and you are right to bring it to light. and these issues need to be addressed. For yours and the sakes of all other students at London Met I beg colleagues to stop this bickering. It serves none of us well, not least our students. The person above (bank-style) should put their name to the accusation of fiddling. It's a serious charge and rumour-mongering of the worst sort but then as he/she said - they're on their way out. Hopefully the ivory towers are beckoning. ..NILES - international students are NOT our problem - they're our salvation.

Yes we can:- Thank you for your support. I urge all of you to listen to Bob and his colleagues and take part in a constructive debate. I run a students society- does anyone need a room booking? :-D

Yes We Can Enlighten us why HEFEC wants to claw back millions? Give us the details. From my own experiences I know this was coming, warned a few powers that be. I am waiting for your explation and you full name

Niles, May I ask you why you did not leave during the induction week. It was clear to all in that week what you say now about London Met. 3As at A level would have got you into UCL just a bus ride away!

Niles - yes to debate. Let's follow Bob's lead on this . Bank Style - are you employed by the funding council? You appear to know a lot. I don't. All I know is that the accusation you made is deflamatory and very serious. Seems like those that don't have get hit and the rich get richer all the time. You going to a Russell Group university - the type that sells a painting or two when in difficulty? We can't do that. You are right about one thing though. The funding council wants fewer universities in London. I suspect that's why the clawback is happening. LIBERATED STUDENT - thanks for the 4 days you deigned to give us - but good luck at Brunel anyway.

Yes You can. The story which appears at the top which started thse dicssions says: "As Times Higher Education revealed last July, Hefce says that problems with the university's data on student dropouts mean that the university has been overpaid by the funding council for several year". You tell me what the above means. The key words are 'problems with the data on student drop outs' and 'overpaid'. You say I used 'deflamatory' language. Did it ever occur to you that HEFCE has NOT asked clawbacks from UEL, Midx, UOW and SBU? They would have done if they wanted to as you say rationalise the number of new universities in London Selling painting or antiques in possession to fund the shortfall is better than to ask taxpayers to cough up for mistakes which were self-made knowingly and after sufficiently warned by lowly staff.

Yes You can. The story which appears at the top which started thse dicssions says: "As Times Higher Education revealed last July, Hefce says that problems with the university's data on student dropouts mean that the university has been overpaid by the funding council for several year". You tell me what the above means. The key words are 'problems with the data on student drop outs' and 'overpaid'. You say I used 'deflamatory' language. Did it ever occur to you that HEFCE has NOT asked clawbacks from UEL, Midx, UOW and SBU? They would have done if they wanted to as you say rationalise the number of new universities in London Selling painting or antiques in possession to fund the shortfall is better than to ask taxpayers to cough up for mistakes which were self-made knowingly and after sufficiently warned by lowly staff.

Bank Style - meant to say 'defamatory' not deFlamatory - obviously conflated 'inflammatory and deflame' in my head. Maybe because both were true. Listen, I'm tired now. I was just trying to lift the spirits of those of us who still have to go to work tomorrow. What you said implies that, as in institution, we are fraudulent. That has serious repercussions for all of us - students and workers alike. I, like most of us, believe in the place and work hard for it. I don't understand the funding rules but I'm pretty sure that UEL and its ilk should expect the same HEFCE visitation and if doesn't happen, then I, for one, would want to know why. Unless you are saying that London Met is a particular case - and if that is what you are saying, then you should put your name to it. The truth is always the first casualty in a crisis of this kind.

Liberated student- I will stress again that I was satisfied with the quality of teaching when I first joined. Let's suppose that I did want to switch- I'm an international student thousands of miles away from home. I would have to write to the home office, change visa particulars, force my fee out of London Met and direct it to another university. Also London Met was at the time 4 thousand pounds cheaper than UCL. (8k vs 12k). I couldn't ask my retired parents for 12k more over 3 years. However I did not want to switch. Why? The staff were excellent and taught very well. Tutorial sessions were great and we had guest speakers come in from industry. We had investment in new equipment and labs. However this changed down the line, by which time it was too late to switch. Research and cutting edge technology becomes apparent in your final years of study and at the post graduate level, especially if you're interested in a career in research. I am unhappy but I have made the best of my degree, having organised events and dealt with industry, gained relevant work experience through summer internships and read journals and kept up to date with ongoing research. A student is as good as he wants to be. However the limiting factor I now face is the reputation of the university going downhill as a result of these recent problems. Employers are beginning to take notice, as are better universities, the results of which are apparent when you apply for jobs or for research positions. I will have to start at the bottom and work my way up, instead of getting the boost which I thought a London degree would get me. Financially it has not been justified expenditure, and I will take many years to repay my parents. However for the sake of recent graduates and current students, I urge everyone to help garner fresh ideas to rejuvenate the system to impress upon employers and academics worldwide. As much as I'd like to sit here and refresh this page, (and it's been wonderful for my bad habit of procrastination!), but I have a project to work on). I will try and arrange for a room booking with the interim SU in February and hope to see all of you there. I'm not sure how this fits in with union/staff rules but free speech is free speech and I urge you all to attend. Certainly better than the bogus 'demonstration' being organised on facebook.

Yes We can Didn't you read what the story thread above by the THES says. I quoted the paragraph. You are dancing around it and want to bury the story. Why don't you ask your VC Roper why he is asking for staff cuts and saying that millions of clawback are required? Your inquisition is with him and not with me. Your union shop stewards were busy blogging for bank style bail out. Ask them what the problem is. If you are a lecturer/SL/PL ask ALs and your HODs about the issue and why student drop outs which are sent from the depts up to the senior management are queried by the HEFCE. While you are doing this, ask your HOD what could have happed for thr drop out data and progression data, checked by the dept staff and ALs concerned along with the UG centre leaders in the period HEFCE seems to be concerned. If you are kept in the dark and if there is no transparency in the management chain, you should realise that the problem is systemic and mere rolling of heads at the top will not do. As far cheering up, I suggest a few minutes of YOGA every day. You may need it when Roper's tsunami hits London Met.

I am enrolling at London met tomorrow and am now feeling slightly concerned. I have offers from other universities in London, would anyone be able to tell me how easy it is to transfer, and what would happen to my tuition fees for the first year if I decide that the course isn't for me. Thank you.

Concerned Student - I can see why you might be concerned but you should enrol tomorrow as planned and if you feel you need to transfer, you can. You can transfer your student fees. - talk to Student Services. BUT, you should at least give the place a chance. The blogs above are, by and large, a small number of people, maybe less than 10 under different guises. Some of the most vitriolic are those with an axe to grind, whatever their reason may be.

concerned studdent be If you are concerned, best delay enrollment until you have chats with other universities in London from which you have offers. If you have not enrolled, you do not need transfer to university of choice. If possible meet the course leaders in these universities personally and ask questions that you may have. I do not know the reason why you wanted to enroll in London Met, but whatever it is, delay the enrollment for a few days. I am assuming that you have offers from new universities in London, in which case check when their Spring semesters start, probably in February, which should give you ample time for you to talk to them. This is buyers market, you are the customer and you are right to be concerned as you want to make right decision. Again, I am assuming that you are on student loan. If you paying from personal funds, best to negotiate with universities to pay by semesters. But the student loan company in Glasgow pays student tuition fee for the year to in two installements. Ask the Student Loan companty when they pay the first installment tuition fee to the university. if payment starts, difficult to route to another university. Best delay London Met enrollment for a few days , contact other universities which have made offers, chat with them and then decide. Good Luck

Concerned student - as said above you should still enrol and give it a shot. I have found the standard of teaching to be generally high, but if anything goes wrong don't expect any help. That is actually the emphatic advice given to my small group by the course leader during induction, and has proved correct in my case. Also consider that the standard and particularly choice of modules may dwindle due to the budget reduction. I know that 2 of the core modules for my final year of study were axed at very short notice, forcing a last minute rethink about my course of study. As far as I'm concerned, I was accepted at Brunel and Reading but chose London Met simply because several reasons made it better for me to be in central London. I now thoroughly regret this decision.

Concerned student be In my experience, working through student services of the enrolled university after enrollment to transfer to another unversity is not an ideal approach. Please remember, it is your education and your money and you decide what is best for you-you should be selfish in this respect. You are not here to help university X, Y or Z. Hence my suggestion is to delay the enrollment until you had chance to chat with other universities.

Dear concerned student, I have been a lecturer at LondonMet for almost 3 years. I have never experienced the battles described by some colleagues between North versus City campuses and never in my 3 years had any problems with my colleagues. In fact I find it a rather hospitable place to work and I have often be supported in new projects. I find that most of my students are hard working and especially international ones have been a pleasure to work with. Some of my students have developed new societies with my guidance so that they can maximise their learning experience. We work hard but we have fun and the location means we can have plenty of input from our industry. Of course this is a large university and I do not claim to be able to understand all the departments so my suggestion is to talk to your Course Leader ASAP and if you can a couple of current students that study the same course, if you are unhappy with their reaction then consider a transfer. After all you are the customer and it is your money and time you are investing, it is a big investment so ensure you are happy were you are. Good luck with your studies

Why have all posts suddenly skipped chronological order and gotten reshuffled?

Concerned student be Please abandon your desire of enrolling at London Met. The members of staff here who advice you to enroll at London Met tomorrow are not honest enough to say to you about real London Met. I would not believe a university which enrolls full time students and which does not appear in a league table. London Met is one. I suffered studying in that university and would not recommend it to my worst enemy. Even those lecturers who were just about OK have left and you will be taught by lecturers who can't communicate and whose knowledge is questionable. The lecturers who post here would have you believe that those who have posted negative comments are doing it out of some gripe. But I do not think so and so are the students. They are doing a service to warn the students not to come to London Met for studies while you have plenty of other better new universities in London-UOW, MIDDX, SBU, Greenwich and Kingston. If you can commute a short distance by train try U of Herts which has better reputation by far. London Met is in financial mess. There will be staff cuts and your support will suffer. Even otherwise, keep away from London Met. I regretted when an existing London Met student begged me not to come . It took me an year to move out. I wish the academic staff here who advise you to enroll in London Met are doing so for selfish reasons. If you want to experience poor teaching and classmates who are more interested to do other things than study and see them disrupt lectures, by all means join London Met. Otherwise, you have plenty of choices. .

Concerned student be I understand you are concerned about London Met where you want to enroll. Please don't enroll at London Met. Llisten to students who have posted here who were shortchanged by LondonMet. Contrary to what London Met staff here say, I have no axe to grind and I would give the same advice to my daughter/son. Don't go to London Met for three important reasons: poor teaching, poor reputation and financial mess. The very same staff who advise you to come to London Met will stand in picket lines, boycott exam invigilations and answer scripts marking come May as the university is sure to implement job cuts. They say they care for you as staff cuts bite students without explaining how exam boycotts, lecture boycotts, marking boycotts help students. Let me say before I list universities in or around London where you get uninterrupted education as these universities have no finacial problems in the scale London has and certainly have better reputation as they appear in the Times Good University League table, unlike London Met who have lot to hide. I do not work in any of the folliwng universities. They are in the order of preference:: 1. Univ of Herts 2. Kingston U 3. U of Westminster 4. U of Greenwich You will be Ok, if you keep away from London Met. Watch how the London Met staff will be hurlingverbal insults at me after this!!

You know what people, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It highlights issues that have recently come into the public domain. Can you imagine once investigated, and should the media decide to delve further, what other matters financial and otherwise will come out, possibly to the detriment of London Met and/or its staff and students. After all, under its proposed culling process, staff won't need to maintain their loyalties to an institution that is prepared to drop 'em like a hot potato! Then we'll know exactly whether this University is still 'fit for purpose!'

Many of the problems arising is pre-merger Floud/Roper and cronies never examined the two institutions IT infrastructures in any real detail/thought. UNL had a very securely implemented Novell network with PCs running Windows; LGU had a Windows network and PCs plus Macs in the 'creative' areas. BTW a popular IT oxymoron is 'Windows Security'; anyone who owns a PC can't fail to be aware of the constant need to download patches and service packs to fix windows bugs and security vulnerabilities. After merger LMU SYSS HOD (was HOD of LGU IT, now at Greenwich mind you) told one department in north "the system is far too complex and overmanned, in city we run a bog-standard windows network with three people". More than circumstantial evidence exists that exam papers have become available to those who need them. The xansarisation process saw a corporate decision made to remove Novell and replace it with Windows network in north. A tucking fypical LMU management decision which predictably will be regretted. A proven secure network system should have introduced to both campuses; not its opposite. UNL abandoned Macs in the mid 90's because of hardware and maintainence costs and a second string of support expertise was required. It may have been perfectly true 15 or more years ago that much creative work could only be done on a Mac; but are there any serious applications that run exclusively on Macs, of couse not. The insistance on their use now is pure affectation. As a consequence of LMU's IT department not telling these creatives to rethink is a raft of posts that didn't exist 3 years ago is now required to support those souls. In these impecunious times can any organisation corporate or educating afford to run parallel IT support and infrastructures? Net result is unneccessary staff increases, higher procurement costs and a less secure network. An earlier comment mentioned fixed IP, to enlarge on it from a security viewpoint its excellent as sysops know exactly which lab or office data traffic originated from. It also controls movement of kit as the IP address is allocated on both the ethernet address of the network card and router's port number; change either and the PC can't login the network.

Let's Make A Deal - Londonmet does not own the moorgate building. Also, it was my understanding that for legal reasons, Tower Hill could not be sold until 6 years after merger.

Old SYSS person: agree with your analysis of the department Rich, but you should do yourself a favour and educate yourself about OSX - you obviously know very little about the music and media industries (we teach both music technology and film making, you ever heard of 'Logic Pro' or 'Final Cut'? Thought not. When you watched TV yesterday evening the sounds and images you experienced were the product of both. Guess what, Mac only.). Yes, I know this not the appropriate forum. :-)

When all said and done the plain fact is London Met is not fit for purpose and has been for many years. The merger of two so called universities, only in name but for practical purposes they were FE colleges with a few more departments, but quality of students, staff , leadeship etc.. was as one would find in the worst FE colleges. Should London Met downsize drastically: YES in the first stage and the second stage decision has to be taken by appropriate external authorities, whether any purpose is served in wasting money on this institution, given that Greater London and suburbs have new universities which can serve the purpose. Looking at the pathetic state of London Met, it is best to wind it up.

The Board of Governers are under a duty to protect the interests of the University. If the Board of Governers support the VC, head of HR, head of Finance etc, then the Board of Governers should be forced to resign. VOTE NO-CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNORS!!!

The London Met staff who were blaming the VC and his senior management team are now also blaming the governors as well. This is symptom of rot that has set in very deep, whatever recent difficulties you air are like appearance of mould and fungus. No use in clearning the top layer. The cancer has become metastatic needing system-wide therapy not targeted therapy. I work in a local secondary school and London Met is not even the last choice for my students. The last time, the recruiting teams visited the local schools, we told them not to bother to visit again. London Met is an embarassment for the borough. Whenever the LEA meetings and borough-wide school meetings take place, London Met is held out as an example where our students may end up, if we are not careful and if they do not perform well. The best service London Met can do is to empty the Hollway Road buildings and move in to its City buildings. The only beneficiaries from its presence are the umpteen unhealthy kebab, halal and fastfood joints that have sprung up. Even they were murmuring about university students behaviour. Please, move the embarassment out of Hollway Road.

If there is any truth in what you write I am sure you would not mind taking the credit by telling us your name, and which local secondary school you teach at? (TO EDITOR/TECHNICAL STAFF: would it be hard to add commenters' IP addresses next to the comments?)

to Move the embarassment from Holloway Road No use in shooting the messenger. It tells the depth of ignorance London Met staff have about where they are recruiting from. I bet you do not even know how many sixth form schools are in London Met boroughs and what advice teachers give to their students about where to go after A levels. You do not get students with A levels and London Met is not in their choices in UCAS forms. You recruit all during clearing and you reduce the admission requirements to silly levels to get the body count. I too have heard in student circles what a joke London Met has become. Please, sir, recognise what depths London Met has sunk to. My dad tells me, even years ago, the former polys were only good for technician courses.

Both my sons attend schools in Islington. For some time their careers tutors have threatened them with London Metropolitan as a warning of where they could end up unless they study hard and get good grades! Other parents my wife and I have discussed London Metropolitan with hold similar views, and from the alarmingly illiterate responses from some lecturers on this home page I can see why. It's a running joke. I wonder, if they were honest, just how many of those lecturers defending London Metropolitan would be happy for their own kids to study there? I suspect all this brouhaha is more about protecting their own jobs rather than altruisticly providing educational opportunities for the disadvantaged.

Tony Harrison, Move the embarassment from Holloway, Liberated student I must be in the minority to agree with what you all say. Arguments like bank style bail out, just removing a layer of senior management, how hard we all work and how our students are so eager to learn etc.. are way out of the truth. I can understand job preservation, I can lose mine, but that should not mask the poor quality of service we provide in educating those who deserve to be educated at a standard that the country expects We the academic staff are largely responsible for the poor reputation of the university which you bring it to our attention and the public. I agree that arguably London Met is the worst new university in Britain. We have to redouble our efforts to educate our students to acceptable standards which is expected at certain levels in the degree course. If a large percentage of even the very academically weak students we recruit drop out every year, we should accept the result and report the numbers truthfully to HEFCE which gives us the taxpayers money. Same applies to progression each year. We collectively do not seem to have learnt the lesson from large drop out rates and poor progression rates which have occurred over many many years. We should accept that those who drooped out should not have been recruited to the university in the first place and the case of large number of not progressed the same, but for the latter we have not provided them alternative less academic routes within the university. That is because London Met wants to be called university without observing the critical prerequisite- admission to only those who are able to study at degree level maintaining acceptable learning standards. But we invite all and sundry twisting the semantics of 'widening access'. If we had done the former we wouldn’t be in the pickle we are in now. A poster asks, would we send our own kids to get his/her education in London Met. My honest answer is NO and I know a majority of my colleagues including me don’t. London Met should shrink if it has to be ranked with other good universities eventually. That we all have to accept.

The news is nothing of a shock. the university has intentially done this to maximise its directors pockets, and satisfy the needs of corporate leeches that it has attained since its academic and trustworthy staff were slowly funnelled out after its merger. the steps come in place after the student union itself is NOT democratically elected, therefore the voice of the students and the ones who will loose out the most cannot be democratically represented, as they currently have paid so called interims. hey did they have this whole thing planned? i dont know you do the maths. but how is it all of a sudden that the university is suddenly called a null election last year due to apparent fraud, which it still hasnt been fully publicised not even to the nominees or the students, what happened to the so-called police involvement? why is that not mentioned. personally this is just a way of getting the REAL student voice to be silenced, no matter how democratic they say the interims are and how representative they are, they are on the bankroll, and can be silenced like others have. secondly, why is there a a £256K vice chancellor still in power after the last set of major redundancies. it is because we have a board of governors that do NOT want the interests of the students, but are happy to keep the useless vice chancellor in power because he ignores the face of the truth and also brings them in money and business links for their own personal gain. it is treated like a portfolio. many real staff members have left, others have been silenced, but i blame the staff union and the student body for being either ignorant or being to lazy on the backsides and letting it get to such an extreme case, where were you then, why are you crying now?

I joined Met in February of 2007, a very uncoventional time of the year for an undergrad student but I came with the enthusiasm that the year would fulfill my student dreams. - I was greated with barely an induction. My first lecture room was theatre on Benwell Road, which I could not find for the full hour of the lecture! I tried to prepare myself with maps from the internet, as paper maps are not available and the ones within the university are useless too. Obviously on the day I attempted to ask other students, where the majority couldn't speak english or did not have the time to direct me, which is understandable. But even the reception gave me shoddy directions and the security asked me to ask people along the way. I got over this problem as I saw university as a time of independance and I'd have to learn somehow! - As a new student at the age of 18, I'd wished to experience the fun university life, but barely anything is organised in terms of having a good university spirit. At times like this I wished I'd gone to a campus university. - The halls at this university are atrocious too. A small single room with a shared bathroom and kitchen is over £100. I decided to rent my own flat, fully furnished with a living room etc, for just over that price. Comfort is a luxury I could definitely afford. Especially considering the dodgy location of the halls of residence on Caledonian Road, roaming with prostitutes and crackheads. - Social life aside, I started attending a statistics lecture, which was taught by a small chinese woman. Without sounding racist, the class could not understand ANYTHING she was teaching. I self taught from the text book for that module. - In many modules there was a lot of group work involved, which is practically impossible. My group consisted of 2 party girl tarts who never turned up and a girl who spoke barely any English but managed to land herself a job in Movida club, of course because she was beautiful. The tarts let us down, and Movida girl did all her work from Wikipedia even though she'd been told not to so many times. Guess what, module failed. I tried to retake in the summer, but the way it was designed was always fitting for a group to take orally. - The teachers (PAA's) there had supposed office hours, maybe once a week where all their students from undergrad and post would have to squeeze themselves in. You'd wait outside in a sweaty corridor with no chairs for maybe 2 hours, and then be told "I have to go to a lecture, come back later!" These are the people that would one day become your references, but after all the lining up I did I was never significant. - After choosing my modules for the next term, there were some aparant clashes in my timetable. So i amended my list and waited for classes to begin. Knowing my Met luck, one module finished at 11, at Holloway Road, while another was starting at 11 at Ladbroke House, which is a good 20 min walk at least! Not to mention the lack of funding in the university when it comes to lifts, where in the Tower building there is one lift that usually works that can take you up to the 13th floor. I've never seen all 3 working at the same time - In addition to this, I decided to take French, which was running from 1 til 4 on a Tuesday at North. But they had to change it for some reason to 6 til 9 on a Wednesday evening at City Campus, which can be unreasonably far for someone staying in North. It was the annoyance of it all that got to me. - After not passing all my modules, I took some retakes in the summer. I requested help from my tutors numerous amounts of times, and then consulted the university about why they weren't responding. It turns out "the staff have no obligations in guiding students during retakes". Many of them were out of the country during the time I was doing my coursework and revision. Now if I didnt understand the work the first time, how on earth am I going to pass without any help this time!? - During my retakes, I had some personal health problems, so I had to hand my work in late. I had read on the website that mitigating circumstances must be submitted by the 4th September. So I did this, happily going into the submission office. I got there and I was told that the 4th was the day to hand the claim in, but the work should have been handed in 4 days ago. My university career was over. There was nothing I could do at this stage. I decided to wait until results were released so that I could fight my case. - To this day my results were never published to me, even after I fought my way over the phone for weeks. I transferred to another university, I just wish I could have taken some of my credits over with me too. I guess I'm another drop out that Met is claiming money from!

London Met drop out I am sorry your experience is all too familiar for me. London Met academic staff rarely come across students like you and me who were interested in learning and attending classes even though in this forum they say that they do but in fact they only look after themselves. What worried me in my stay for 1 year at London Met, which I want to forget, was the lack of essential qualification of a lecturer, the knowledge and ability to communicate to impart that knowledge to us. I discovered that this is no place for either a student who is interested to learn or alecturer well qualified and interested to educate the students to the standard expected. I also discovered that I was the only UCAS entrant in my class. Lecturers did not bother about class mates never turning up. A few of them were working in the restaurants nearby during the lecture hours and one of them I spotted working in the university cafeteria literally next to the lecture room he should have been in for the lectures!!! I was warned about London Met by my teachers when they realised that I was interested to go there. When writing my UCAS reference, my teacher pleaded with me to go to City University or to Brunel if I did not get the grades that UCL and imperial required. In the end, I just missed the entry grades to UCL/Imperial and would have been accepted at City / Brunel. I did not listen to them. I after realising within weeks what London Met was, I put effort into getting good grades in my first year which I did. This allowed me to transfer to Royal Holloway. During the January and June exams I used to see the absentee class mates for the first time, a large number of them coming, and leaving the exam room after 30 mins. That left only about 8 of us in a class of 50. Reading what London Met has done, I am sure most of these 30 mins leavers would have been the issue! I knew a number of them were progressed to the second year. I do not know aboutr the VC and senior management who are evidently not to fit to manage and should go, but I will also stress that a large majority of lecturers too are not fit to be holding on to their positions and should leave. I am not surprised that a few lecturers either do not believe or are angry about school teachers urging their pupils to get good A level grades in order not to land in London Met. It shows how they are remote from the realities. They should know very very few students come to London Met through UCAS route and I certainly did not meet any student who had the 3 A level passes.

to read these comments. Many of the PSD staff work hard to support staff and students, yet we are the ones who are in line for the majority of the redundancies. It's also sad to read the comments from students.

After reading some of londonmet academic staff's comments on the university and how much they want to leave the "sinking ship" It nothing short than disgusting! I have completed my undegraduate at londonmet with 2:1 in 2006, and came back here to accomplish my MSc. As a matter of fact I had offers from some "prestige" university, but the reason I returned was that I really enjoyed my time here. I enjoyed exellent teaching and almost all my tutors were helpful and always approachable. I never knew about this battles between the campuses nor that there were any mismananagements. Maybe because I was too busy studying hard which is the reason for anyone to be at university!!!!!!!! Anyway, after reading these comments of some staff I lost my respect after every line that I was reading (and I pray to god they didn't come from any tutors who taught me or is teaching me). In times of struggle solidarity is key!! A real man/women's intergrity is not assesed in times of comfort but during hardship and struggle. Now that our uni struggles; true colours are shining through which proved your lack of integrity, sense of unity and no spark of decency. Shame on all the staff, those trying to pull the university through the mud. You were supposed to lead us students by examble, we were looking up to you, but it just became evident that some of us have more modesty. In trying to give the university a bad name do you think you are doing yourself any justice? Who will employ you or take your ability and loyality serious if you adress your own institiution/employer like that? Tomorrow, there is a great risk that you talk rubbish about your new employer once they face difficulties just like you doing now to londonmet, so why would anyone want to employ a traitor? Ever thought of that instead of pushing the buck of blame? What goes around comes around. It's time for us students and staff to unite against those who are responsbile rather than damaging the universites reputation even further whith such counterporductive remarks. Let me make one more thing clear, it is not the hard studying students, like myself, nor the hard-working tutors' ,who take pride in teaching us, fault so lets you unite against the injustice. UNITED WE STAND-DEVIDED WE ALL FALL!!!!! Including those who think they will be better off somewhere else.

I agree. But don't get too upset - bear in mind that there are most likely not as many muck-raking staff as the (anonymous!) comments here would seem to suggest. Every time there is a positive comment like yours, 5 negative ones show up by magic to bash it. I don't want to claim that those writing these comments have an alternative agenda, but "they" have skillfully presented (and repeated 50 times) the most negative bias imaginable. The university is not perfect (and nor am I, and nor is any UK HE establishment I've had any dealing with) but when I read that we are a cancer, that the "large majority" are not fit to teach, with overseas students who can't say "hello" in English (to pick some ridiculous phrases from above) I wonder exactly what the commentators expect to gain by their viciousness.

Disgusted student After reading what you have written and particularly the style of it, hard to believe that you are a postgraduate student, and was offered place in 'prestigious' universities. The reason you came back to study at London Met where you achieved 2:1was you 'enjoyed your time', which may mean many things. That is what many students said in the induction week I participated a few years ago, and later left having realised why they chose London Met, which was in no way connected to studies. If it was the case, why there are so many drop outs? I have a couple of friends in PG courses i London Met who constantly pester me for doing their courseworkds for them. I have herad anecdotes from them about mass plagiarism in coursework. All of them really seem to be 'enjoying their time'! Strange to call some one' traitor' who leaves London Met if does not measure up one's expctations. I did that as a student years ago, and many members of academic staff did that too, a few of them have come to Brunel, my university. If those who stay put do so not because of altruistic reasons, which is unbelievable given that London Met has been getting bad to worse, management problems continuing over the years, but because they were unsuccessful in getting another position in another university.

Most of these Education institutions are run by people who don't know there left hand to their right. They are not particulary interested in the University but more about their own pockets. The Government needs to audit there places much more and look at the management, who are so slack and incompetent.

I agree with Tom Wood, most education sectors need a complete overhaul (generally the academic staff are ok in my eyes) its the management and support staff that bring the institution down. The education sector needs a overhaul, otherwise more Universities will be in same situation as London Met Uni. The government gives far to much money and most of it is squandered on poor decision making and poor staff and management. Its worse then public sector!!

Liberated student.....Firstly, judging my writing style in an internet forum shows how narrow-minded you are and no sense of thinking. Unlike you, I don't put the dictionary next to me just to impress strangers on the internet. This is the internet and not an English examination. If it was the case, I bet everything I have, I would have defeated you with style. Unlkine you I am not trying to impress here people with my " I am all that* attidute that you maybe don't get confirmed in the real world. Secondly, get your facts straight because what you wrote seems to be taken fout of a perfectly created novel with a happy ending. Hard to believe that you have ever been here, seing how ignorant you are. The institute that you have joined seems to be the bigger loser seing what low representation you are providing them. Ps: Go and work on your spelling and grammar as well and while you at it, please get a life. We are discussing here adult issues and don't need childish remarks! Speak sense or remain in silence, please!

Disgusted student In case you do not realise, despite your remarks, if you do not study in London Met and go to a better university like Brunel, the chances of you expecting happy ending is better than if you are in London Met. Brunel, UCL and Imperial have no scandals like London Met has and does not need any one like you defending their credentials. The same problems of attendance, coursework submissions exist at MSc levels. I have heard this from LONDON Met PG students who from time to time come to us for help to complete their courseworks. My four days in London Met during the induction week gave me enough insight into this so called university. I still like to know about your 'prestigious Universities offer', why you did not go there and what you mean by 'enjoying your time' . Funny definition of 'traitor' in your lexicon. I can really believe now that you are in London Met, which is making the news for all wrong reasons. We who comment on aspects of London Met are reacting to these news which has put London Met in such bad light. Even without our comments, London Met does not shine. One oftenwonders about the purpose of this institution. This is an open forum and I have a right to put forward my contents. In case, you do not know, you seem not to know, the editor will ensure that the posters do not transgress their editorial policies.

IS Peter "most education sectors need a complete overhaul (generally the academic staff are ok in my eyes) its the management and support staff that bring the institution down. The education sector needs a overhaul, otherwise more Universities will be in same situation as London Met Uni. The government gives far to much money and most of it is squandered on poor decision making and poor staff and management. Its worse then public sector" It is only a very few new universities which are in trouble. The two 'Mets' -Leeds Met and London Met are creating news for two different reasons. The problems of London Met is serious -reporting wrong data,and the clawback demanded by HEFCE runs up tens of millions. I agree that the education sector needs a thorough overhaul, in the new university sector, by slimming down the size of universities like London Met (merging and shutting faculties), setting strict minimum standards for student admissions, allowing clearing for reduced time say 2-3 weeks. The overhaul should start from London Met. This is a good opportunity. Funny that you blame management and support staff and not academic staff!

Hahahaha you are a legend! Putting yourself in the same sentence as UCL and Imperial. Now that is what I call optimistic spirit. Too bad that sometimes being too optimistic is losing the reality out of sight-which happened in your case, quite clearly. Ok lets assume you are in the same boat as these "prestigious universities". Anyway, I wish I could speak to you in 5 years time and see where our degrees have taken us. For your info, without sounding being complete full of myself, but I doubt that you would ever get the job I am holding now. Feel really sorry for people like you who think just the name of a instititute (Brunel is not included though the way you praise it is like its Oxford something) will get you anywhere you want. At the end of the day it is all down to how well you persuade your future employer that you are the right person for the job. And my dear friend, no institution on earth can teach you this because it is called "talent". I can name you 101 scientist and people who contributed significant inventions to science and business that don't even hold a degree. And you come here claim to be all that *God gift to the world* just because you go, to say it in your words, to a *prestigious university*. Hahaha I will suggest come back to reality as soon as possible. For your own sake ;-). I can go to another institute without further adu but I know that my talent can get me anywhere anyway as opposed to a *name on a paper* that I wasn't even part of its success. You should be only proud on something that you have contributed to its success other than that it becomes hot air. Unlike you, I am not a chicken backing down when things start to heaten up just like many other ex-londonmet people like you did. I am not a follower I am a leader ;-). Ps: Londonmet does not need you for its validation so stop complaining and get on with your life.

My last comment was directed to *liberated student*

It is 'heated up' not 'heaten up'. Not 'complete full' it is 'complete fool', it is not 'adu', it is 'ado', not 'proud on' but 'proud of'. May be you need EFL test. I can get what talent you have which is exclusive to you. and no one has. It worries us, the Londoners these days after our experience. I wonder about your employer and 'job' you have now. If you were any good, you would not have landed in London Met, arguably the worst new university. It is not even in the list of Good university guide. Do you know why? London Met does not want to supply the data which would surely include drop out data. What did you use to pursuade your employer to take you. I am getting on fine with my life as I am not in London Met. You are going down with the sinking ship.

I like Tom Woods comment earlier, "Most of these Education institutions are run by people who don't know there left hand to their right. They are not particulary interested in the University but more about their own pockets" I wonder if certain members in the House of Lords might be interested in looking for a job at London Met !

Liberate student, did I hit a wound nerve? Oh, well seems like I gave more credit to you than you actually deserve. I don't like having discussion with "e-thugs" and wanabe "e-professors". So take care and good luck! With that ignorance, you will definitly need it ;-).

Disgusted student. What is your lament on one hand ( your first posting ) and your glee about your talent on the other ( last posting)? Your argument is what? Traitors ( your word) like us who left London Met are putting down your beloved university using such colurful phrases as 'sinking ship'. Is that it? Hardly our fault, if LondonMet gets into the news doing things it should not have done. Why do you pray God that this does not come from your tutors who you say are excellent? What prayer has to do with what we are discussing? We are not inventing anything that we have not experienced. We would not be talking about London Met if London Met is not in this pickle of producing data which HEFCE did not agree with and it says that London Met is doing this for years thereby receiving more money than it should and asks money back after working out figures. You are uniting against who? Already the union has put fatwa on Roper! We are saying that London Met needs more in-depth shake out, and to us it resembles a sinking ship. If you do not agree, you should know that we are living in a free country. Let every one who has some had some links with London Met syas what she/he thinks. This is a discussion forum. I think you should go back to your studies. Time perhaps to think about your Spring semester?

The Evening Standard now carries the story of London Met. It is not the naysayers who are doing this, just as they were not responsible when a biochemistry student was building a Alqueda cell in a portacab and a Nigerian student pockted tens of thousands pounds worth of student fee and maintenace loan from the student loan company by enrolling in a number of courses at the same time (who gave him multiple admissions , registered him for multiple courses if not those at the departmental levels). London Met is not working

Personally my viewpint on how successful a University's student is in my opinon dependent on the drive of the individual and to a lesser extent the teaching and facilities. However having the best of everything be it facilities, support and the calibre of the academic staff all help with the overall student experience. However with the case of London met, and am sure a few other modern university's are proberly shaking in their boots. Having worked in the education sector and well known London university, i must say it is pretty shambolic and sad state of affairs. Management incompetent and 'happy families' workforce. The management are simply poor and only interested in their pay cheques and other staff are pretty much the same, my exception is teaching staff who are ok. The technology is pretty poor and sub standard for the amount of staff they have and people have the dont really care attitude and quick to pass the buck and have the 'not my job responsibility' line. The govenment needs to take a stricter approach in this sector and realise the amount of million pounds that are wasted for no good reason. Bring in auditors and private sector staff to run these places and hopefully it would stem out some of the dead wood that 'work' in these places (who else would employ them) and get things moving along this forgotten sector.

Its not just London Met, they are th scapegoat for there own bad doing - imagine what goes on at other University's under the bonnet. Corruption and underhand procedures. THIS SECTOR NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY TO STOP THE ROT - and this sector costs the taxpayer alot of money to fund, which could go to healthcare and other public services instead. Bring in a government taskforce and get rid of some of the staff that work in such places and turn these places around to what they used to be. Funny how the economic climate has not affected this sector - it does'nt hurt anyones back pocket thats why!!!!!! Education sector in the UK is a complete utter shambles with plenty of scratch my back and i scratch yours goings on - if this is'nt corruption what is!!!!!!

you have nothing else to do... go and teach, prove that you can. i have seen dozen unies, old ones as well. and i work in londonmet. i would put my kid to study there. and you?

Where you teach Oh herman? London Met? Students do not attend classes, and even if they do in small numbers ( their friends disappear into black economy) attend as human bodies doing other things during lectures, like listening to music, text messaging etc.. Exams? We caught a few of them in the middle of exams going to tiolets to read slips of papers they brought. Coursework? Do you know, the extent of plagiarism prevailing in London Met? Every year I have seen quite a few who simply reproduce pages after pages from the Web articles. Even in this they are not clever. You could see start of the essay in bad English and after the first page, you discover that the sentences are beautifully constructed in excellent English!!! Pick a few words there, and use them as keywords in Google search. Bingo! the original article tumbles out!! No need to use software to detect plagiarism which is so blatant! Once, my whole PG class were shown to be plagiarists. I can give you the year and the course. Want to see it plastered all over the cyberspace? Calling them as students and teaching them? I would rather teach chimpanzees any time and can get something out of them!! You may want to put your son/daughter in the midst of these characters calling themselves as students. I wouldn't put my son/daughter into this hole which calls itself university and I sympathese with yours if you did In what capacity did you see old universities-student, external examiner , staff? Come on, do not tell us porkies. All you guys want is to preserve your jobs and let London Met admit students who should not be in any university and graduate a few of them who shouldn't be graduates. No wonder London Met had to resort to creative counting of drop outs and completions. What use this edifice to our society and country?

I can understand the wonderful experience a MSc student says he is having in London Met. Perhaps I should share mine too. It was a full-time course and we took turn to attend the classes. It showed the sense of our sharing responsibility. Not all of us arrived to the lectures at the same time though. Like us, the lecturers had no clue what they were presenting in their slides. They are also human beings like us! In our course, as we are mature students with education under our belts, most of the modules had large course work component and some had only coursework components. The wikipedia owner should be proud of us as we exploited his project to the full. Please do not accuse us as plagiarists when we simply shared the words of wisdom in web publications mindful of the fact that changing any words or sentences there in would be insult to the authors. Did our lecturers exercise about it? No, we knew and they knew what extrawork it would be ( form filling, reporting to admin about academic malpractice, their own competence etc.. etc..), and the course leader too. It was smooth sailing as far as modules were concerned. Exams never bothered us. We did not have to go to the loo to do a bit of reference, when we had other ways. We have passed our techniques on to the next generation of PG students. The project too was not a problem. With 5 other new universities in London which offer similar PG courses, our ID cards got us into their libraries, ready proposals and full project reports were there waiting for us. Our computing PG friends had a trick or two up their sleaves, they downloaded demo projects, demo software an d the like edited them to their requirement. The lecturers did not want to look petty and silly when the department heads and senior staff demanded good data on module progression and completion. The lecturers needed their promotions. In other courses PG friends phocopied reports, scanned them and these days of free shareware editing software, they tailored them to their requirements. We knew it was more difficult for lecturers to report plagiarism in London Met as they needed us desperately.. Many even told us, 'heavyhandedness in this regard' he said does not help them to recruit MSc students next year. You can read their posting to know much they care for us! Oh herman dreskin sir, you must be a weird individual for not recognising the rich universal sharing experience we all had at London Met and as the MSc student posting says, how much we enjoyed our time at London Met. Mind you, we did progress and got our degrees. We recommend other friends from far and wide. UG course pass is not a requirement in many cases. We understand when our lecturers in the posting say about 'students from deprived background and widening access'. After all we put the digital technology to full use. That is what our politicians want us to do in this globalised world! You have picks all over the world if you need help in your projects!! t Afterall, the end justifies the means!! If London Met was not there where would we be ? Vive la London Met!!!

Education sector needs a complete overhaul - wonder what goes on at other institutions

A London Met House Elf 24 January, 2009 Please get in touch because am most interested in what you have to say!

Hi, I have read most of the postings above, and it is evident that LondonMet as any other institution in private or public sector faces the immense challenge of making the merger between UNL and LGU work. Mergers have a high percentage of failure as I have extensively learnt during masters degree at City University. It requires a detailed pre-merger analysis and planning to find out if the merger makes sense in the first place and the best partner for that purpose. In fact, after all is said and done roughly 60%-70% of mergers/acquistions fail*, meaning the purpose of the merger is not achieved. Although I was not in the UK during the merger, I am quite confident that none of the above was done properly, especially since UEL pulled off at a late stage of merger talks and the whole process was pushed through by the UK government. More importantly, according to empirical studies a substantial effort at post-merger integration, the most critical component, can still turn fortunes around. Above all it requires strong leadership focused on making the merger a success; speedy decision-making to minimise uncertainty among employees who otherwise may leave; consistent and frank communication from the very top on the challenges being faced and decision taken to correct them. Finally, the top management should be prepared to face surprises and be flexible to change their plan. As a student who joined just after the merger I can say that there was little communication to students about the changes taking place. Many decisions did not make sense, as blogger mentioned above, the same deparments work from both campuses and due the distance in-between coordinated effort often lacked. A no-brainer solution would be to put them together in one campus. Another example, is the absense of LondonMet in league tables, which is an essential indicator of how different departments are progressing and could serve as quite good variable to incentivise and compensate academic staff. This policy should be changed, however biased VC Roper considers the league tables to be!!! Another area to be looked at is the marking of exams, I believe it is too conservative, in my year out of 50-60 people no-one obtained 1st class, I got 2.1 and was able to follow it up with a distinction at MSc level. I personally had a great time at LondonMet, true it is not in Russell Group, and many people have never heard of it (it reminds of my job interviews!!!) since it is a newly named institution and etc... and yet there a number of very knowledgeable & experienced lecturers, at least in business & economics areas, that students would be fortunate to have. The above named issues are only some of the critical matters that need to be dealt with urgently, through proper consultation with inside and outside experts. It is naive to hope that now the management will change and act differently, accountability should be brought to the top. A change in VC and around him would feed fresh ideas and get rid of the old relationships that stand in the way of change. * Intelligent M&A, S. Moeller & C. Brady, 2007

.

Former BA student Unlike the 'disgusted student' who is doing MSc at LondonMet, I can see what the City University PG course has done to you. You are articulate. In the world of enterprise, there is no clean merger, a very good example is HP and Compaq, the former was services enterprise and the latter was product enterprise. Both were strong enetrprises before merger. The merger should have been successful. It was not and the problems of HP continue even today. Before merger, despite what the City Campus staff say now, LGU was not the Oxford University on Thames. Its precursor, the City of London Poly was not working and post 1992 LGU carried all the problems City of London Poly had. It did not have the kind of successive shake outs PNL had. PNL had its own problems too and they were carried forward when it became UNL. Hence LGU+UNL meant problems galore whcih would not have been solved, although drastic slimming of London Met duriing merger would have removed at least a few problems. Former LGU staff say their institution was wonderful and former UNL staff say theirs was not bad. But in reality both isntitutions were very bad. They were not unique in this respect. The whole concept of new universities was ill-coceived and badly executed. . Former polys were not going to be 'universities' by simply changing the names. They were there to provide sub-degree courses. By acquiring the 'universities' title, they all ditched what they were good at-the technician level courses. The only beneficiaries were the VCs and senior managements who were liberated from the constraints of old Polys where they were scrutinised constantly by the LEAs. Look at Leeds Met and UEL, both are in trouble, no merger issue, and I would not be surprised if there are more like them in the pipeline. These so called new universties, all have recruitment problems, particularly recruiting academically qualified students who last the course. But they are snapped by old universities. That leaves the failed A levels, least qualified, less able local students and ill-qualifed and ill-equiped overseas students whose sole motive is to simply come to UK and work. New unversities add tens of thousands of illegal immigrants as majority of these overseas students do not attend lectures, fail courses and drop out, disappear into black economy and overstay in the country when their Visas expire. While America is attracting the bright and the best students, Britain is attracting the least able overseas and local students all of whom go to new universities. The country is NOT benefitting from the new universities at all. London Met had to carry out creative counting in regards to drop outs which includes the local least able and the overseas least able 'students'. New universities are producing a substantial number of mediocre graduates. By shutting down a number of these new universities, in one stroke i) reduce illegal immigration contribution by overseas students ii) reduce medoicre graduates who dumb down the value of a degree iii) save tax payers money iv) create opportunity to bring back polytechnics. The spat between former LGU staff and former UNL staff is minor.

A correction: it should read. in one stroke will i)..ii)..

London's new universities - SBU, LONDON MET, UOW, UEL and MIDDX should shrink to just 2 new universities with compulsary entry qualifications of A level passes/IB passes/equivalents, to add to the existing 3 old universities. Similarly country-wide rationalisation should take place. Labour MPs I have met believe that their voters come partly from the large number of new universities. In fact, every one is fed up with this Labour government, and the govt will at least do some good if the new universities secto ris rationalised and the terms ' widening access and disadvantaged background' should be clearly explained adding 'academically qualified to undertake univeristy courses' to them.

I am amazed! You have the perfect mind of an economist to be... I absolutely agree! Those students DO NOT eat they DO NOT rent accommodation, they DO NOT pay fees, their parents DO NOT work hard in their respective countries to educate them, there is NO economic multiplier effect WHATSOEVER and NO business would EVER have any benefit from their existence (insert applause to that idiot here, I bet that this genius was created within the walls of a red brick university )

to perennial problems of new universities Hi amazed London Met staff! Stop pretending! You must be the desciple of Bill Rammell and Bickerton mob!!! Sure there is MULTIPLIER effect. You only read how easily that Nigerian student MULTIPLIED his loans and pocketed thousands of taxpapers money by enrolling for a MULTIPLE of courses which staff like you happily obliged ( applause here your effort in making him rich in one stroke) Sure there is MULTIPLIER effect of more and more overseas and home students flocking into London Met because they know that London Met runs 'clearing' for months, and lower their entry qualifications to the floor whether it is admiiting GCSEs with U grades with A level fails to first year degree or those with failed in first year in other universities to second year degrees. I worked in Lond Met to know that i)all those very underqualified from home and abroad were admitted willy nilly ii) 1st year drop out rates are over 50% iii) Those 'hardworking parents' from overseas sent their sons/daughters, who couldn't speak English and who were recruited by Bickerton mob in those countries promising that work is avaialble in London as many of them were very short of hard currency to pay for their education) iv) those conscientious students you refer to are in a minority to the extent that they are almost nonexistent v) taking 5-6 years to pass a degree course for majority of those who do not drop out by this time majority overseas recruits disappared in black economy v) MULTIPLIER effect in plagiarism Obviosly you are a London Met staff may be teaching London Met brand of economics, whose CV is blotted by working there and hence couldn't get out. You want to preserve your job to carry on bussing in students who shouldn't be even inHNC courses. Are you jealous about Redbrick universities like your leader Roper and abolish all of them so that London met can flood in stuents who can create the MULTIPLIER effect- multiplying drop put rates, MULTIPLYING no-progression rates which HEFCE has found out and want the money back?

The true history of London Guildhall I have cuttings on what then ILEA thought about City of London Polytechnic way back in 1980s, long before you knew some one called Roper!! That was in Ken Livingston's regime in GLC when the ILEA was the citadel of hard lefties and mllitants. Even they could not stomach the pathetic City of London Polytechnic

to perennial problems of new universities Obviously you have not grasped the problem of overseas students unable to continue for academic and financial reasons and dropping out after braving a few months of working at fast food joints 20 hours a week. Let me explain this problem as I have many overseas friends who are studying here in London. First, a large number of them come from Indian subcontinent which has very good national, regional and local universities and autonomus degree awarding colleges. But they select students based on competetive tests, and have strict admissions criteria of equivalent to A level passes with good grades. Those who CANNOT GAIN admission to even the latter start thinking of Britain for i) they can easily get their visas as compared to USA where they have to sign forms to show that they will not settle there and show ENOUGH dollars in their account in the bank for their studies. In USA, the law forbits an alien ( students with F-1 visas come under this category) to work OUTSIDE the campus. Those who can afford the expensive American university education go there first. ii) Britain has comparatively lax immigration rules. For example, the overseas student can work upto 20 hours a week. This is silly as every one knows working 20 hours a week is detrimental to studies even for a briht student. iii) Majority of overseas students cannot afford the fee and maintainance even coming from middle class from a countries like India, Bangladesh or Pakistan. Even wih the weakest pound, the average funds per year they are looking say £6000 with frugal maintenace costs gets MULTIPLIED by 40-50 times in their own currency and multiply this yearly cost by 3- you are staring at telephone figure sums in local currency for them!! Even rich kids from Indian subcontinent with servants at home are working in jobs the likes of which even their servants at home will not do, and taking years to complete their degrees if they do not drop out. There is no necessity for these students with below average academic achievements to come to Britain, if they stay in their own countries and work hard. In my 4 days of stay at London Met ( I moved afterwards), I met students from Indian subcontinent and SE asia, who some how convinced the London Met agents in their countries that they need to study just 18 months in Britain!!!! When they landed here, their course leaders found that they were less qualified for even HND 1st year, but were forced by the pwers that be in London Met to give them module credits so that they can have 18 months degree completion fresh from their countries. They could not string English words together properly!! Many of them never left this country and are working here. This was a shock to me ( and a kick in teeth as a British student who took my A levels seriously) as I was the only student in that London Met degree with good A level grades. I got out from London Met fast.

I'm a former London Met employee who recently left the institution to move to a better one. Although I was paid by an externally-funded project, my experience over the 2,5 years I stayed there is that people both within my immediate management team and more widely are very narrow-minded, limited in their knowledge and in the end in fact behaved in the most appalling of ways. When the background and standard of academic staff is often low and when many staff members within professional services cannot construct a simple sentence accurately, when any student application is accepted purely for the money and not for its quality, when staff at management level cannot manage, it's no wonder HEFCE demand their money back as student performance and retention was appalling and staff vision too limited to understand this. I cannot blame everyone with LMU and it's not everyone's fault but the university could have seen this coming and did nothing about it. I'm ecstatic I left in good time!!!

to perennial problems of new universities.... Hello sir, I read your comments and can only politley say you are ignorant and your economics needs to adjust to reality. Do you realise for example that even middle class parents in India working hard for years, the savings they make after their expenses falls well short of meeting 1 year of fees and maintainance in London? Only very rich can send their kids abroad for studies and these I agree with 'Liberated student' go to America. The miiddle class parents in India are more snobbish if any as they want to send their kids to the best universities, in your jargon' redbrick universitie'.. Please wake up to the fact that London Met recruits overseas students with poor education bacground from outside EU and who start working the day they arrive here. The education takes back seat. My family helped a few students from your university. The solution for this is for the British Highcommission to be a bit more strict for visas and the Home Office giving just 1 additional year ( for UG 4 years for PG 2 years fulltime)for completion and cutting the hours a student visa holder can work by half to 10 hours. In these days of job losses, they will compete will the home/EU labour force and we know where it is already leading to. London Met should recruit responsibly, if not the govt should step in.

Many of the comments above prompt me to ask "why do we need all these managers?" - what happened to flattened hierarchies, the University as "the coming together of like-minded people" (which is where the name came from). Without all that empire-building and micromanagement, where would we be? Britain has a long history of engineering innovation spoiled by bean counting, and an equally impressive history of appalling management methods applied to various cultures around the world. I'm not advocating public flogging of anyone who utters phrases like "stakeholder" (when not referring to a vampire hunter) and so on - they can't help it. But you wouldn't give them the keys to your car or your daughter's hand in marriage, so why let them ruin the workplace? They only have this so-called power (which really is only the power to say "no", to stop things from happening - it's not actually the power to make things happen) if we give it to them. So how do we get the monkey off our back?

Let me first query the so called multiplier effect mostly echoed by Bill Rammell as some one mentioned and he brandishes often an astronomocal sum of 9 billion pounds which heaven knows how he arrived at, in defending the mass recruitment of overseas students ( outside EU ) Aren't we assuming that i) all students who come from overseas bring 3 years of fee plus maintenance money with them ii) they are so sensible that they will attend lectures, continue with their studies and complete in 3 years iii) they will not compete wth local labour force for jobs while they are studying as these days of recession jobs are difficult to find. In reality it appears from what is posted i) and ii) are not happening, ii) has contributed to the disputed data and HEFCE wanting clawback, and evidently iii) leads to social disharmony and problems as some one also mentioned. We are soaking up many problems. Also from other postings, London Met management at all levels seem to irresponsible to say the least. In an university like this, it is no surprising that the standard of academic staff is found to be low, as some one also mentioned. Jealousy from them shows when they carp at redbrick universities, where obviously they could not get positions. I agree that nation-wide and particularly London-wide new university sector needs to be looked at for rationalisation. It is where the problems are emanating from postings. I would agree that all polytechnics were allowed to be called universities, no criteria was applied to acquire this title which was a big mistake like other mistakes by Major govt, and it is evident that a handfull of former polys really deserve the title. As for the others the govt should using the funding instrument should downsize them and force further mergers to slim this sector.

To all those who have expressed the view that 'overseas students come to work in Britain':- This may be true for a small percentage of students, but the majority of us cannot be equated to academically poor local college dropouts. Also please remember that your weaker, incapable 'foreign' student might be an asylum seeker or local resident. Most of us work hard to get a good degree and pay bucket loads for it I studied CIE A Levels overseas and got 3 As and a C. I studied IGCSE (CIE and Edexcel) and got 5A*s, 2As and a B. I'm a native english speaker. International students are full-fee paying students, contributing 8-12 thousand pounds to London Met, and much more towards London accommodation and the local economy. I'm a final year undergraduate student who has spent over 30 thousand pounds on his education (although admittedly lower than the 45k needed for older unis). I have retired parents to repay. I posted above that I'm currently unhappy with the quality of education being imparted and will return home having felt 'cheated', however I would like to stress that, at least in my case, I was very satisfied with the quality of education when I first joined (albeit shocked with the lack of lab equipment). That was before all the good lecturers were forced to leave and were replaced by foreign lecturers with very poor communication skills, retired staff, and unqualified personnel being promoted to positions of authority. My new course leader has a bachelor's degree. He has never worked in industry in his life, nor has he carried out any research. I often have to argue in class about outdated methods being taught (we were taught to reject them as false and outdated by those few good men who have now sadly left). Although I'm graduating now, I would very much like all these problems to be solved, as this affects directly, the reputation of the University and ergo the jobs its alumni can get. In conclusion, please do not stereotype international students: we work hard and help keep London Met afloat and aren't all moonlighting in your local curry house.

Niles, I was an acdemic at London Met and know what happens there. You are a rare breed. You seem to reproduce the same comments verbatim . In our previous department the drop out rates were over 50% for the1st year, over 30% in second year. Out of them in the first year about 40% were overseas students. As a course leader, more often I got complaints from my colleagues about absebtee students, many of them from overseas. They all started working the very first month of arrival. In my MSc classes, the drop out rates were still higher. The completion rate was only 20%. That was just 1 year ago. I think you,your friends and your colleagues and the London Met management should become a bit more serious. I am in touch with my colleagues at London Met who tell me in confidence that if anythings drop out rates have become worse. Are you telling me that say an Indian student whose country's currency even today has a onversion rate of 70 to a pound is bringing enough money for 3 year study which costs him//her £30,000 x70 in their currency? You must be joking. As a poster said , I have alsoseen even the rich from there doing work the kind of which even their servants in India would not do. It is time that London Met and other similar universities took the matter seriously and stop these so called students coming in and also stop recruiting students here who are not ready for university studies.

Niles You seem to have a statement written and ready. I see your latest posting is the same as your origial posting in this thread! Why, the same rebuttal sentences? Are you from the union? I am afraid, whatever you say, I know London Met is picked by overseas students, who are not qualified enough to study in a British university, because it provides an easy route of entry to Britain. I know a number of them ( from Africa, Caribbean, IIndia, Pakistan, Bangladesh) work all week, some of them in curry houses in BrickLane, East London, which is not an issue but they have been doing it not attending lectures. A few of them never progressed beyond 1st year even after 3 years of arrival,never attend lectures and the university has not withdrawn them I was told. I know for a fact that in many departments in London Met attendance is not considered when allowing resits for students. Although a maximum of two resits only are allowed, these students say that they often manage to repeat the year, a few times, extending their visa and no attending lectures , owing fees to the university. They are in hole as they owe a lot of fee which makes o work more hours in BrickLane, no appearance in lectures and the cycle repeats. This made me to move from Londn Met after attending 4 days induction week.

Former London Met staff- Yes I posted this before- I felt that the message needed to be sent out again to help clarify my position. You seem to suggest however, that reposting one’s comment is akin to plagiarism! There certainly are students who come to this country, study at London Met and drop out, as you suggest. However when they do so they are letting themselves and their families down. These students have to pay their fees, failing which, the trigger happy finance brigade calls in the debt-collectors. I’ve had them pay me a visit due an administrative error and it was a harrowing experience! I received a letter from the VC apologising for their behaviour (but I sure would like to have a letter from him apologising for replacing good academic staff with pathetic unqualified imports). Full-fee paying students accounted for over 20 million pounds to London Met’s income last year and are critical to its continued survival. Yes there are teething problems with low entry requirements. I have sat in class, holding back my anger, whilst the unqualified 'diploma' graduate from overseas gets to skip 10 modules. However in the end he will fail to get a good degree and fail to impress upon the best employers; whereas a dedicated student like me will be proactive and study hard, not plagiarise and certainly not work for any reason other than for work experience or extra pocket money. I am extremely offended by your comments stereotyping south Asian students. Not all 'rich' Indians have servants; this is akin to suggesting that elephants are still the preferred means of transport among the proletariat. Middle class students from commonwealth states can afford an education in London and DO need to demonstrate this when applying for a student visa. You say that you are an academic, and you may be qualified to be one, however your tendency to stereotype and belittle overseas students suggests to me that you aren't a dedicated educator and as a student, I would not have any respect for you. The small percentage of those who do manage to seep in through cracks in the system are not representative of the overseas student body at-large. The only explanation I can perceive is that there are some courses which are very popular with these students, with which you were probably involved. However, getting back to the issue at-hand, I must agree that London Met's problems need to be solved. I will return to my country having felt cheated by poor standard of education received but primarily the reputation of the university. London Met has let down a large number of us, but I do have friends from countries all over the world including the United States who are content with their courses. I do agree with you, that London Met needs to examine this and other issues seriously, however (to borrow an expression from your lexicon) a ‘so-called’ educator such as yourself needs to shed immediately, the false view held of overseas students. As a former staff member furthermore, I don’t believe you have any right to discuss the future of the institution as you are no longer a stakeholder, unless you have any constructive suggestions for the institution. Additionally to ‘liberated student’ and others who spent a week at London Met- I’m glad you got out whilst you could and I would have too if London Met’s problems were apparent sooner and if it weren’t so hard for an overseas student to do so. However you’re not a stakeholder at this institution and are not affected by its problems so would like to ask you to refrain from posting unconstructive comments, for the benefit of directing this forum to garnering ideas and reaching a consensus. Also to the gentleman who claims to be studying a masters degree at London Met and who clearly has no grasp of English- please stop posting on this forum- you’re one of the worst examples of international students London Met has to offer. Others- rest assured that such students are confined a small minority of courses and departments. Lastly I would like to draw attention to the several comments posted by current staff members who call for constructive debate and discussion and an end to this unhelpful bickering. What good does grinding your axe on this online forum do? What good does a staff union protest do? As an HONEST international student, and representing many more as the president of a student’s society, I implore all of you to consider the benefits of dialogue.

Furthermore to liberated student- recent changes in academic policy have resulted in a maximum 'passing' grade to be obtained by any resit examinations, and in turn will effect the eventual degree classification. Also, changes to the student visa system means that institutions will now be required to 'sponsor' overseas students and with compulsory ID cards being introduced which involves fingerprinting international students like criminals will act as a severe deterrent to dishonest students. I for one will not stand for being treated like a criminal and will be taking my master's business elsewhere. Result: you risk scaring off students who bring in vital tuition fees. I suppose its required but I certainly am not impressed.

Also its virtually impossible for an international student to extend his/her student visa whilst 'owing money' to their university. Those who do are clearly in the beach of the law and it's your responsibility as a concerned citizen to inform the home office or the police.

"Full-fee paying students accounted for over 20 million pounds to London Met’s income last year and are critical to its continued survival." You conflate many issues here. Every home student has to pay the fee these days. As far overseas students, they bring funds enough to last for 1 year. As far Indian students, I know more about the country than you do. FYI elephant population in India has come down substantailly as they are poached for Ivory like those in Africa. India has overa dozen world class universities, over 100 state universities and countless local colleges which offer degrees whose standards are better than london Met. No need for them to come to UK. Qulaified students do not come. The poorly qualified who can't get into local colleges are picked up London Met agents. Do you know how much a kg of tomato costs in India? Even middleclass canot save the finds required for 3 years degree here. Suffice to leave it at that. About student VISA. The consulate asks to show a bank statement as evidence for fees. It does not mean that that balance will there once the student leaves for UK. "You say that you are an academic, and you may be qualified to be one, however your tendency to stereotype and belittle overseas students suggests to me that you aren't a dedicated educator and as a student, I would not have any respect for you" I have seen overseas students for years and years who come to new universities like London Met. My stereotyping is not wide-off the mark. I do not care whether you respect me or not. People who know me know that I do not compromise honesty, professionalism and standard just because I say what is wrong. As there are enough people who respect me for what I say and practice, I do not need yours. Finally, what you say about being an overseas student and was not able to transfer to another better university is not true. I have helped transfer many students who I thought came to London Met by mistake but deserve better. The Home Office accepts the transfer as long as there is sufficient academic reasons for transfer. Perhaps you did not satisy the entry requirements of other university. If you did they would take care ofthe transfer. They did it for a student of mine last week who wanted to transfer to LSE for specialist economics studies. universities

"Also its virtually impossible for an international student to extend his/her student visa whilst 'owing money' to their university. Those who do are clearly in the beach of the law and it's your responsibility as a concerned citizen to inform the home office or the police." This shows your ignorance the ways London Met and new universities work If you owe money, it is best to get money from you than to call the law. Also, those dropped out simply disappear into black economy. I think you need to know more before you post. As a concerned citizen I want London Met to close as it leaves too many illegal immigrants in this country

I for one support the ID cards. If you study in France/ Germany/Netherlands/Belgium you need ID cards. In case you go to these countries prepare for an ID card. If you want to go to USA for master's of business, you have to sit for an exam and score high. Also, these days, USA is strict in giving F-1 visas to students. When you land there , you have a set of searching questions, finger printing waiting for you. Canada the same and Australia no different. Of all the countries we are lax here. I support ID cards for students and immigrants.

'Former London Met staff'- I won't repost my previous comments as you clearly don't like this, however I strongly suggest that you do re-read them. I had 3 A's at A Level (CIE). I did get sucked in to London Met by an agent however I will reiterate that the quality of education received initially was excellent. Excellent staff members have however been forced to leave and I've been left with unqualified, cheap imports. You've ignored half of what I said about transferring. Here it is in further detail: 1) By the time the budget cuts came in to effect I was already halfway through my second year. I contacted other universities in London, none of whom were willing to accept a student, no matter what their academic achievement may be, directly into the final year (I got 83.5% in my 2nd year overall and have never got less than 80% on any module). I did not want to lose a year. 2) The university does not a refund or transfer of tuition fees for international students halfway through a year. I could not risk losing 8 thousand pounds. And finally I am a middle class Christian from India. I am deeply offended by your comments regarding Indians. I am a member of the Indian Society at London Met. I challenge you to come and tell me that you know more about Indian than me at this week's fresher's fair.

correction: that should read: "more about IndianS than me"

Additional correction: that should read: "does not OFFER a refund".

Dear FORMER staff member and FORMER (albeit for 4 days) student- please allow this forum to used for constructive dialogue for CURRENT student and staff members. If you have any suggestions to make, I welcome them, as I'm sure will all my colleagues and teachers but if you're going to insult overseas students, and especially Indians you certainly aren't welcome here. We want to solve the crisis at London Met and this requires a positive constructive approach, leaving behind prejudices and egos.

Niles, In case you have forgotten this is Britain. Here, we have freedom of speech. So it is your choice not to read the posts. What I say about Indians in respect of education in India, fees etc.. is true Do you know that fake certificate factories operate in India? In Hyderbad, so much so an academic in UEL who is an admissions tutor said he had to check the authenticity of every certificate he receives. I caught two in my days at London Met. If you had such good academic background you could have gone to one of IITs and the IISc in India and later on transferred after an undergraduate degree to Institute of management in Calcutta or Ahmedabad. Or like other of your compatriots have gone to USA. In case, you are ignorant, your UK qualifications are of that value in India. Perhaps the top ten univesities here would attract some attention over there, but no London Met. In case you have not noticed Indian education is Americanised. Indian companies and universities recognise business master only from places like London Business School, Wharton, Stern....

Niles, You are here in our country for education. In case you have not noticed we operate slightly differently than India. We have freedom of expression. We crticise Brown and the govt. That is the freedom we earned. What I said about the overseas students in London Met, particularly why they disappear is true. I do not care whether they are from India or madagaskar. This blog is not your university blog in case you do not know. This is THES blog and subject to editorial restrictions, any one interested to contribute can post here.

You sir are the ignorant one. I am a strong proponent of democratic rights and believe in free speech. I merely am trying to be mature about the situation and have called for constructive comments to be made rather than bickering and complaining, which solves nothing. Furthermore I do indeed find your comments about Indians extremely offensive. In a democracy, we respect each other and do not (however tempting it may be) to stereotype and criticise entire races or peoples. Yes fake certificate factories operate etc and I will again stress that dishonest students make up a small minority of international students. You sir have clearly been involved with a lot of dishonest students, and I apologise on their behalf. I however am confident that the majority of us are honest, hard-working students. Yes I could have gone to an IIT but for my course I felt that an 'international' degree would be beneficial, especially one from the UK. The job market I intend to target in India after I graduate is not Americanised. I was sucked in to London Met by an agent. I will reiterate that the quality of education received initially was up to mark but this has now sadly changed, which is why I'm upset.

"In case you have not noticed we operate slightly differently than India. We have freedom of expression". India is a thriving democracy, and the rights her citizens enjoy were fought for by great men and women. Post all you want, but if you think about it, would this discussion function best with constructive ideas or mud slinging?

There is also a correct place for everything. This is a comment board regarding an article pertaining to London Met. Yes you may certainly air your views but why not post them in a more specific forum for their nature? You have a problem with international students, or at least those who come to this country to work illegally. What has this got to do with the article published above? Its about job cuts as a result of funding cuts, which affects the future of current students and staff. Post sir, please do post your comments but surely they're better targeted on a forum with that specific topic of discussion? You have taken my comments about posting out of context.

Niles, Read what I have posted. I do know you should have passed an entrance exam conducted for all IITs and should have achievde a high grade to have gone there. I am almost sure either you did not get it or did not sit. It is a very hard examination. For USA you should have passed with good points another entrance exam (GRE for example in Engg) even to apply. No one who I know who sat for IIT exams and got successful ignored it and came to London Met. Hence no need to explain. I do not think except London Met, it was easy for you to go anoher university like UCL or Imperial in the first place. Talking about London Met, the problem has arisen because the senior management submitted incorrect drop out data to HEFEC and HEFCE wants to claw back. I know from my experience at London Met, the drop outs largely from overseas student pool plus those from home who simply take the student loan money and disappear. A large failure rate means that the Londo Met is not in the universit league table. Finally, there was no need for you to come to this country for any studies. The reason while Indian students come is because i) they cannot get into universities there ii) Their parents snobbishly think that a Western education is for them iii) They think that they can earn while they stud. In early 1980s, after Indian govt introduced visitors visa for British, Britain reciprocated it. The overseas student fee was raised because many students were coming and misusing their university entry for something else. I am 100% sure your London Met degree will be of no value in India.

I support freedom. I do NOT stereotype, I do NOT support ID cards in the view that it restricts freedom, I do NOT support CCTV for fear of invasion of privacy. I do NOT support detention without charge. I support gay marriage. I support gay adoption. I support peace and non-violence. Don't waste your time accusing me of not supporting democratic rights.

Everyone wants to have the last word. Tell you what: the first one to give up the argument wins. Then you can argue about job losses at London Metropolitan Pretend University, instead of arguing at one another.

My god! What a conceited opinion! I challenge you to meet me at uni where I can show you my CIE transcripts. If you think they're fake you can go ahead and inquire from CIE and I'll be happy to pay for any costs involved. Also do you know anything about higher education in India or the US? I am studying an undergraduate degree. I did my SATs (GRE is for graduate study). A degree from the US is not suitable for my field. Would a UK degree be worthless in India? Certainly not. Will a London Met degree be worthless? Its looking that way now yes, unless action is taken immediately to counter the negative trend. I have no interest in engaging in a debate about my personal life on the internet. If you don't to discuss a constructive way out for London Met then so be it. I hope that one day you will realise that we are mostly honest students.

Niles, You are here for education and not for playing politics. Who cares if you do not support ID cards. If an elected govt brings the ID cards that is the law. We as citizens who do not like vote them out. If you do not support it and agitate, you may even be deported. I suggest that as an overseas student you keep away from politics of this country. From what you blurt out you seem a politico and not surprising you are in London Met. In fact we do not need overseas students here.

Liberated student- I have no say in the rules of your country, and whilst I am here I have promised to abide to by the law. I am merely stating my opinion an example of how I support democratic rights. In my country I will support my opinion. I am not a politician and I did not support the so called 'demonstration' supported by student union members. So let's discuss the uni shall we? I'm very concerned about London Met agents around the world hard-selling the uni. They should be stopped. I also think that the VC needs to start listening to what academic staff have to say.

My God! These overseas students come to Britian to study and not indulge in political slogans. If I went to university in New Delhi as a student and sloganise against the Indian govt, I will be arrested and thrown in Indian Jails and may never come out alive. If they do not like anything our govt does, best to keep away from Britain. We elected them and we throw them out.

whoa whoa please don't take my comments out of context. First you accuse me of not understanding free speech. I then say yes I do, see, this is what I believe in. Now you accuse me of interfering with the politics of your country? I am very disappointed with the calibre of posters on this board. I regret to announce that I shall not be wasting further time here. Good luck and peace be with you.

What I find disgraceful is the number of immigrants who can barely speak English, that are recruited to London Met University, and who spend most of their time here working in fast-food joints and slagging this country off.

It is obvious that London Met University doesn't care about providing a decent academic education to anyone, recruits illiterate staff because good staff won't work there, and only recruits foreign students for the money they bring in.

Surely as a result of any merger, staff cuts are inevitable. If there are now a significantly less number of students than were previously thought, it stands to reason that less teaching (& support) staff will be needed. For staff to fight against job cuts is just unreasonable.

Is this supposed to be the Times Higher Education Supplement? The internet does wonderful things to otherwise rational people. I have a set of Allen keys in front of me and they are keeping me amused. My girlfriend is telling me I should come to bed but I'm not sure, it's snowing. I just farted. Who else has anything of little consequence to say?

Have just read all this with interest! My son has applied for a course at London Met for Sept 2009 entry- should he withdraw or stick with it- Its in the Art Faculty (Sir John Cass)?

Maggie Please read my post. If you need help/ more info please post.

the policy of universitys now are simple - bring in money by admitting the most number of students and then squander that money on pointless projects. One has to look at some of the poor facilities and teaching rooms/buildings the classes are held in. Government should step in and reform this mockery sector

I'm in the field of FE, and understand annoyed staff sounding off about their institutions - we all do it about our places of work - so I am taking this into account, I also understand the need to get in students, and the risks this poses at a "new university"-HOWEVER 500 redundacies spells trouble somewhere, and its a little difficult to believe the overfund and the mis reading of the data regarding your retention and achievement data- if no-one picked this up at HEFCE that was a real bonus to LMU - it was in no-one's interest your end to "notice" they'd made a mistake....! From my selfish point of view, I want to know which faculties are most affected- my son picked your institution because he wants to study a particular course, that you offer, (and Royal College of Art does not), and because its in London - (we're non Londoners) so whats the impact likely to be on the Art Faculty - morale obviously must be down, facilities? staff leaving?

Maggie, I am sure if you are non-londonder there are other universiies outside london which offer the course you son wants. Did you try the School of art/ design at the univesity of Westminster- I guess it is in their Harrow campus. Try Univ of Herts, Oxford Brookes etc.. With the redundancies and cutbacks looming, no one knows what will be the end result. London Met has been badly managed for years. Regarding HEFCE If I supply consistently over years the wrong data about student drop outs and progression there is no way HEFCE can find out until they do auditing,verifying the actual data. They must have determined what the actual data has been during the period. For example, when I was working in London Met there was around 50% drop out in first year which in my module I was teaching almost every year( i.e. students enrolling and simply disappearing after just 2 weeks, and no shows at exams and no coursework, ) which I used to record when submitting module results, having pointed out the absentees after each week of attendance returns. But yet to my surprise, the data that was sent to management, which I interecepted once contained ALL student names to show even the drop outs were attending ( e.g.for a class of 65, the drop outs were about 34 but the figure submitted showed 65 when the real figure was 31) which to me is blatant wrong reporting by intent. I agree with HEFCE. London Met has become unmanageable by expnsion and it is time that it was slimmed down.

Anyone considering enrolling at London Met must be stark raving bonkers. Only those who do not have the A-levels to gain entry into a decent university should even consider London Met as a last resort. London Met is a 3rd-rate polytechnic with a majority of poorly qualified non-english speaking students who drop out in the first year. Why would anyone want to go there, if they could get into anywhere else? Even if you get a degree from London Met, prospective employers will take one look at your CV and laugh.

I have worked at LMU for several years, and it was the biggest mistake of my career. Even a lot of staff can barely string a sentence in decent English. Classes are poorly managed, subjects are not understood by poorly qualified lecturers, and morale is at rock bottom for students and staff. There is no way I'd let my child go to London Met. It is the biggest joke in UK HE.

Well, thank you for your comments... Even more persuasive is the fact that I've been unable to get through to anyone at all at LMU due to the fact that the phone(s) seem to be stuck on a permanent loop - perhaps everyone's gone to a meeting, a walkout, or perhaps its today's snow.

Do not take any notice of "Former London Met staff". He/she is simply a troll & seems to have a particular grudge against anything connected with what used to be London Guildhall. John Cass still has a fine reputation in the art world. BTW, I doubt you would be able to contact London unis (or any other organisations in London for that matter) today, because of the weather; there were no buses & no trains into London so people were just not able to get into work. If you have any doubts about John Cass, just visit & talk to some of the current students, they are nothing like the ones that the troll describes.

"Even a lot of staff can barely string a sentence in decent English" you say. Well, I guess your own post lends some support to that theory.

To Maggie If I am a troll why would I have a particular grudge against London Guildhall only which is part of London Met? You are not thinking straight like all your colleagues are in London Met. Your prejudice against North Campus shows and that clearly indicates warring factions in London Met and this alone should keep any parent and propective studens well away from this edifice which calls itself London Met. In fact I worked in Sir John Cass and I know more about it than you who probably ever would. My guess is you are a UCU junkie or a mere union fodder trying to preserve your job by staying on this sinking ship. How come other universities in London were working today?

To Maggie Did i not say that we had the pleasure of receiving a new member of staff to our central London Campus very recently, Yes from London Met, who rightly jumped from the sunking ship. Just last week, I was shown an application from another academic staff from former London Guildhall, I knew as a union member to the finger tips during the merger. I said this to the interview committee person, and the comrade would not be gracing our premises.

"Your prejudice against North Campus shows..." Oh, unlike yours against City aka LGU, of course. I don't believe for one moment that you worked in John Cass, in fact I believe that you still actually work at London Met, but not in John Cass. I suspect that you are unable to get a job anywhere else because you are not as smart as you think you are. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with working at London Met & you are very boring & snobbish. How many organisations were were working in London today? Not even buses or trains were running; I bet you were not at your desk in the lovely Tower Building. Plenty of of time to send nasty posts...

To "Former London Met staff". What an ignoramus you are? Victoria line was working, Piccadilly was working in Arnos Grove to Acton. Hammersmith and City and Metropolitan were only partly suspended,Northern lines some delays That was the situation at 9:00 this morrning. These lines should cover UOW, UCL, Imperial, London Met ( North and City) and City U. I htink you are missing a few brain cells. I am not in London Met and not in that smelly Tower building. I think you need re-education, but if you are missing a few brain cels, well.... I got out when I had still my expertise and worth ethics in tact.

"Just last week, I was shown an application from another academic staff from former London Guildhall, I knew as a union member to the finger tips during the merger. I said this to the interview committee person, and the comrade would not be gracing our premises." What utter BS. In your dreams! If your little story, is true, which it patently isn't, since you still "work" at London Met, it isn't legal to discriminate against people for the "reason" you suggest. This is just wishful thinking on your part. You are not a "Former London Met staff " at all, just a troll & a current London Met, ant-union member of staff with too much time on your hands.

Your extensive knowledge of the London transport system as evidenced by many of your previous posts, is indeed impressive. This is no doubt, your specialist academic area. No, am not "missing a few brain cels" (I think you mean "cells"). And what are "worth ethics "?

to "Former London Met staff" I tested your brain cells functions. They are not working. For now, you should take tablets and go to sleep. Do not exercise your brain cells on weightier matters. Don't forget the tablets.

Nobody from City Campus wants to work at North Campus. Holloway Road stinks and is full of ignorant oiks. The sooner Roper is sacked the better. Then London Metropolitan University can have a rebrand and change it's name to Guildhall University.

City Campus Staff: you are typical of the idiotic snobs at City campus who have refused to cooperate with North campus to hide your own failings, and your bickering and obstructiveness is the reason why the merger hasn't worked.

Everyone knows North campus staff are incompetent and the redundancies should be at North campus so that City campus staff can take over running the courses. City staff are proving that North staff are lazy & incompetent and City are better than North staff in every way.

City Campus and North Campus staff both of you stink, and are surplus to the requirement and London Met is surplus to the requirement. Rationalise the new universties in London by closing London Met down asap and slimming down this sector in London and the rest of the country. They are the routes for illegal immigration, they dumb down degrees by admitting students who shouldn't be at universities. The war between the two campuses in London Met who want their own jobs to be preserved should send out a strong message to school and college leavers to avoid the dump called London Met. It is finished.

Hey City Campus Staff! You had opportunity in 2002 to protest against the merger railroaded by Floud and Co in conjunction with Roper. You did not and listened to your union barons who had their own selfish agenda. Floud was knighted and became Sir R Floud!! You know that your union shop steward comrade Mark C does all his lectures at North Campus, but maintains his office at Tower Hill building. Did you ever ask him why? I can answer. He can have both ways. If North Campus is rationalised, he can claim that he is from City Campus, and if City Campus is rationalised, he can claim that he teaches in North Campus. Clever blokes these union leaders in saving their own jobs! They will sell you down Thames, given a chance. He is going to fight for your jobs, North Campus staff, but he does not share the 10 in a room office you all have. He is going to save your jobs, City Campus Staff, but he does all his teaching at North Campus. Follow this pied piper children!

Former London Met Staff and Ex-LGU staff You are both right. Realising albeit late that London Met was not working, and a sinking ship with limited life before it settles down to the ocean floor, I moved out to an university which works. You are right in that London Met is a divided university -divided physically by departments which run in both campuses-City and North, divided by two agendas: 1. North Campus staff hate the City Campus staff as the latter keep alive their dream of LGU rising one day but come very reluctantly to North to usurp courses to teach 2. City Campus staff, realising that they were sold down the river Thames by their LGU VC Sir R Floud and their HODs, also find that their City Campus courses attract less and less students ( For example , Tower Hill has courses which have seen student numbers depleted), are forced to go to dreaded North Campus to lecture ( as you say like comrade Mark C) to kep their mortgage payments going with salaries topped up by a differential £3700 which North Campus staff rightly fume about ( comrade Mark C gets this nice top up too while working with his North Campus staff who earn £3700 less than him, they never got the increments he claims they had) are dreaming of their beloved LGU rising from the meger ocean. With these TWO DIFFERENT AGENDAS, how can one expect London Met to deliver? North Campus staff rightly argue that City Campus now is a minor player, its buildings like Moorgate and Tower Hill are on long lets, not owned, it is time that City Campus closed, and the Berlin walls in departments removed and the departments located in North Campus. This inevitably means London Met downsizing itself which is the short term solution. For the long term, it should slim substantially further closing down departments and courses which have very few students. They are mainly in the City Campus.

In line with previous comments, shouldn't that be 'sinking ship'?

Erm, I mean 'stinking'. Oops.

that staff have not been given an update from on high, since Mr Roper's all staff message announcing the redundancies. How about an update on timescales of the VR or compulsory, if you want all those staff gone by July?

I wonder how much Roper's bonus & pay-rise will be this year? How many staff will be made redundant to finance management bonuses & pay-rises this year? What do you reckon - each of the SMG get a £40,000 pay-rise and the same again as a bonus. That means 2 lecturers fired for each of the SMG, just so they can get their contractual pay-rise & bonuses.

Roper bonus apart, the HOD of each department, ass HOD and ALs most of whom in my experience are deadwood also get bonus in the order of 4-5 figures for so called managing their staff. These poorly qualified individuals make enough money in their life time to live in places like Salisbury after their retirement!

'Suprised' that should read 'surprised' - you must be a City Campus staff member! Sorry. I don't mean that at all but it's just an example of how stupid this all is. Who are you, you people - there can't be more than 10-20 of you and you are causing all this trouble. Get over it!!! We merged. So what? Corporate culture? It's management - and yes my friend, we all need to be managed. I am proud to work for London Met. It's not stuffy, it's vibrant and it gives people a chance. If you want a life of pampered academic A) go back to the previous century B) some Russell Group elitist organisation -viz Education Guardian this week. TO LONDON MET MANAGEMENT - LET'S TAKE ON HEFCE - WE NEED CHALLENGE THIS TO FOR THE SAKE OF OUR MORALE

Rob Thoyts - who he?

This is a call to anyone out there who might be reading this and thinking that the bad guys have all the time on their hands and the best lines. Come on - join in and drown out the voices of negativity. In the words of the world's most powerful man - YES WE CAN!!!

Hey buddy - I'm staff too. You don't 'own' the opinion landscape. I'm not management and not particularly enamoured with it either but I acknowledge the need for management AND recognise the duplicity of HEFCE in this matter. I don't want to join your blog because it's all about the good guys and the bad guys and in your blinkered little world, you are good ergo LGU teaching staff - and the rest of us are damned

London Met Fairy - on a few points of accuracy: (a) the blog 'belongs' to THE (not me) (b) I wasn't aware that I had differentiated between LGU and UNL (certainly wasn't my intention), (c) no-one 'owns' the 'opinion landscape'; but academic debate usually allows more than one voice. The important issue here is the imminent loss of 350-500 jobs, and the damage it is likely to cause to the institution (staff, students, range and quality of delivery, reputation etc). Naive flag-waving and internal bickering are not helpful, and serve to smokescreen the central issues. I do not disagree with you in your view that London Met IS a vibrant place to work. And I agree that it needs management; but the competence of our governance is in question, and this is particularly evidenced by the current crisis (which did not happen overnight). My view (which you may or may not share - that it your choice) is that the responsibiity for this crisis lies with the senior management (and the board of governors, who should - after all - be overseeing management decisions); and for this reason, there needs to be an independent review of governance.

Ok - white flag time - I don't disagree with what you said at all. What does bother me is that you/we don't take our share of responsiblity for this crisis. Academics admitted these students and they taught them. It's not just about management - it's all of us. The HEFCE clawback is a root and branch attack on this type of institution - with a tinge of vendetta (and I'm not paranoid) - HEFCE and the anti-poly brigade are the enemy! Not me. I have to say too that I feel excluded by my union and I'm not alone in that. As you know, a lot of North campus staff left NATFHE and Unison as a result of the last bout of industrial action. It's not Militant I pay my union fees to? Why is my voice not heard any more?

Some of my best friends are from City Campus...what? What have I said?

LMF- I understand your comments regarding the relationship with the union ( I was part of that period, too); and I think you raise an important point in regard to 'voice'- its really essential that your voice (and the voice of North Campus in general) IS heard; and the only effective way for that to happen is for more of us to attend the meetings. At the end of the day, we ARE the union, and the union are representing us. In regard to the second point, on the role of academics in regard to the current crisis - I agree that we admitted and taught students, but the ones who attended are not the issue: the problems arose mainly with those who did not attend, and who we were not allowed to take off the system. We had no control over the systems imposed on us, and our objections were futile. These systems were dicated by management, and the views of academic staff on their impracticability were treated with hostility. How can we be responsible for the regulations imposed and policed by senior management? The responsibility for their actions must lie with them. On your final point, concerning the relationship of the institution with HEFCE, I can't give an educated view on the motivation of HEFCE (and you may be right); but my understanding is that LMet did concede that the figures they provided were inaccurate. In summary, although I can see where you're coming from in terms of the management/HEFCE relationship, I can't agree that the staff carry any responsibility for this funding crisis; and I think it grossly unfair that in spite of this, it will be the staff and the students who suffer the consequences of management's actions. For this reason, I think it really important that the whole situation is reviewed by an independent body with the authority to make the changes necessary to restore confidence in the management and the university.

Yep - the Audit Commission - then we can get to the bottom of it! You still sound like a blameless academic though - you, and I, were there too. But, you are right. We should unite - the North/City schism - mainly perpetrated by Cityists - has got to stop.

A number of us who were disgusted with the London Met institutional structure, from the senior management to the AL level in our departments. We knew for a number of years, our data returns that included drop out and progession we knew was sytematically modified at the department and the UG centre levels before transmitted to the senior management. It was clear to us that the HODs and ALs who at the deprtmental levels and the ALs of UG centres were complicit in his data massaging process. In our estimate it had gone on for atleast 5 years after the merger in 2002. In our departments the UCU leaderhip were in collusion with the departmental management. They knew that Roper and his senior management team would merge departments or rationalise them, if the real data was known and it was in their interest to massage the figures. Meanwhile they were happily recruiting unqualified students local and overseas during clearing weeks. In those weeks, only a few of us in the recruitment team at the clearing desks were critical of the students whose qualifications despite very poor yet recruited willy nilly. If we rejected them (the North Campus staff were looking for acceptable grades and they did this), the City Campus staff revoked this and recruited them for City Campus which which in our departments were getting less and less students. We left London Met after arguing a case for recruitment of qualified students fell on deaf ears of the HOD and the department ALs. It was the recruitment of poor quality students that triggered the drop out and poor progression. We welcome an independent body investigation and are prepared t give evidence about the ways data modifications were carried out by the departmnent. While Roper and his senior management should carry some responsibility, the departments-the HODs and ALs were heavily culpable. It is time that they answered. The one HOD and his departmental ALs we knew took early retirement with good pension and lump sum benefitsand the former head retired to nice Salisbury , thank you all very much!!

'Yes an independent body is essential' - yet another excuse for a semi-literate, malicious rant against your colleagues. I doubt you understand the meaning of the word 'evidence'; and unless you are an elected representative, you are speaking only for yourself. 'It was clear to us that the HODs and ALs who at the deprtmental levels and the ALs of UG centres were complicit in his data massaging process' - what does this mean? You clearly have an axe to grind against specific individuals; but this is really not the place. Whilst I agree that an independent body is essential, they would have rather more important issues to consider.

Don't feed the trolls It laughable that union leaders like Mark C will recognise the evidence when he sees it. People like him were in complicit with the HODs and ALs when all the data transformation was going on. Read what Ex-LGU staff says. All Mark C and his Co want is an independent body investigation of the senior management, yes, they have axe to grind against the Roper and his team, but want every one else conveniently forget where the data originated. It is laughable that the entire data sets, involving all the courses were cooked up by Roper and his team in smoke filled rooms. The whole chain, the HODs, ALs, uG centres and the registry were involved in handling the data. Sure Roper and his team take responsibility for presenting the erroneous data to HEFCE , but these departmental and UG, registry level underlings cannot escape. It is a shame union leaders like him topping up his salary by £3700 work with colleagues in Tower Block North who are paid £3700 less than him for doing the same work. How convenient for union leaders like him sitting in an ofice just sharing with another City Campus collegue of his ilk, where as his North Campus colleagues have to share with 10 others in a room. Elected reps like him will want strike fodders,but they are out to protect their own jobs. All issues from senior management to departmental levels should be considered by an independent body, including hauling up the retired ALs and the HODs who quietly retired after completing the data metamorphosis process for 5 years.

Odd - you sound surprisingly similar to 'Former London Met Staff', once again using this blog as a platform for your venomous spam. I am nothing to do with any of the individuals you cite; but it is clear from the content of your postings that you are anti-union, anti-London Met, anti-colleagues, anti-academics and just generally anti-world, and looking for an opportunity to vent your frustration and blame anyone and everyone for whatever it is that has upset you. Please - find a more appropriate forum for your issues.

We are more than one who Mark Cand his ilk sold us down tahmes. This is an open forum not your rigged up City Campus union meeting. Union junkies are bullies and more you raise your heads and make fool of yourselves, the more you will be despised by potential employers, who wouldn't touch you with a barge pool. Who will pay the salaries that most of your City Campus, poorly qualified are getting now. Yes, we are anti -UCU and the leaders like Mark C. We are speaking o behalf of dozens of those former colleaguesat North Cmpus who are asked to follow the UCU leaders like children. Yes we are against fat cat union leaders like Derek Simpson, the resident of 10 bedroom stately home, and like Mark C who sits with his close comrades in the City Campus. Let him first shift his office from TH to Tower Block Hollway Road to be credible. The one thing union leaders do not like is truth and facts. We are talking only on our behalf, we are gald that we are not on that sinking ship called London Met. We are speaking up on behalf of our former colleagues in the North Campus.

Home in Salisbury Plains, in the heritage region,for the TH bunker resident HOD after he retired with a rich kill on pension and lump sum for the work that he did sitting on papers and e-mail meesages? Must have been the poorest qualifed HOD in all the new university sector! His minories pub drinking companions, the ALs all not qualified to teach even in schools I heard also made huge kills of pensions and lumpsums!

I am from North Campus, and you are not speaking for me, nor for anyone I know. You indicate that you are no longer working at London Met, which is hardly surprising considering your level of literacy and your inability to construct a coherent, objective and substantiated argument. Your post indicates that you are clearly very distressed; but, please, find a more appropriate forum for addressing these issues. You clearly have an axe to grind; but this is really not the place.

Don't feed the troll The very fact that you are unable to get out of that sinking ship says a lot about you. Your level of literacy stops at producing the leaflets for your unions. I have produced good argument as to why all from Roper downwards to departmental levels should be investigated including you. You donot control this forum and hence you should shut up. Who will want you after all these years at London Met. It appears that Roper will ditch the likes of you with the barest minimum redundancy payments. I am out of London Met. It is you who should spend sleepless nights worrying about your job. Who says that those in London Met arguably the worst new university are better qualified. You must be in one of those non jobs at North Campus. I can recognise seeing the likes of you.

This person, don't feed the troll is highly qualified but still is at London Met! Good qualifications and London Met- Oxymoron!

I love teaching at Londonmet, I like both city and north staff. I have some brilliant students both UG and PG levels. Sure I could use a better research time allocation. I could use a better budget for conferences and supporting the student experience. I could use a ranking position for my Uni even if it’s the last one so that I can look forward to climb up the ladder. I could do with decentralisation of all the management functions at Unit level. I could do with more respect and trust to academics by the management. But overall I am happy because of the snow which makes everything look beautiful and then makes commuters fight each other, and it reminds me that in the worst of situations ones true character surfaces… hefce is but a snowflake... the true snow is yet to come...

I am a North Campus staff. I knw that the City Campus staff who shares the module with me gets £3700 top up for doing the same work, some times less as he e-mailed me twice last semestr to step in for him. Am I angry? Incandescent. This £3700 needs to be aired every time as it is an unfair top up for one set of staff in the same dept but at City Campus. I am waiting to quit this place.

YAIBIS - I am none of the individuals you cite. I do not produce leaflets. I don't control this forum. Like the majority of my colleagues, I am well qualified for my post, and choose to work at London Met. It is unlikely that you will have seen me in the corridors. You have absolutely no idea of who I am or what I do. In the absence of any real information or evidence, about me or about anyone else, you rely on fabrication and insults. Hardly the actions of a rational person. Little Purple Snowman... I think you're probably right...! In the meantime, however, in regard to the real issues (the financial crisis, the prospect of 350-500 job losses, the impact on staff and students) has anyone got anything constructive to offer...?

Yes. Close London Met North and City and get rid of this edifice. Don't feed the trolls: Since you say you are well qualified you can get another job. But first, you have to be short-listed for a vacancy. Comng from London Met, I wouldn't say your chances are good. Another North Campus staff raised a good point about pay differential. Don't forget.

.

Don't feed the trolls I offerd a constructive suggestion. Probably you have taken the medication and gone to bed. You need it as you have to go to London Met tomorrow morning.

What can I say? Your sparkling wit, coupled with your creative, compassionate and intelligent analysis of the small matter of the future of 28,000 students, 500 members of staff, and a university, leaves me speechless.

Don't worry about 28,000 students. Between the 7 universities UOW, SBU, MIDDX, UEL, Kingston , Greenwich and Herts, there is enough slack to absorb the 28,000 students-roughly about 4000 to each of them. As for the 500 staff, a few will seek employment in these universities and follow the students. A few others will retired and the rest have to go and seek opportunities in the real world. No big deal . What is so special about a few hundred London Met rif-raf teachers on the dole when companies are shutting and jobs are lost. It is small numbers as the banks have lost ten times the numbers and still are shedding the workforce. The world will be a better place without this infernal institution.

1st point: hasn't the Gov't capped entry levels for the next 2 years? Therefore, how can these students be distributed amongst other London unis? From experience even these 'other' London unis are creaking at the seems. 2nd point: Getting a room booked for teaching is a nightmare. Throw another 30,000 students into this and courses won't have physical spaces to run. Double and triple-booking of rooms is an everyday event. Let's just admit that the student body needs all of the physical space that exists and more to come. The widening participation agenda is over. Done and dusted. The next 5-year plan, as it may be, will take this into account and rationalisations will occur to take into account the teaching space available - hopefully. Classrooms cannot be suddenly called into existence. If the Met closes, its students will, very literally, have nowhere to go.

Doubter You need to do a bit more home work looking ouiside. The slack is in the UG 2nd and 3rd years. We have done studies looking at the slack. The existing students can be accommodated in all these. 7 universities. When the staff of London Met say there are 28,000 students, I am very sure that these students are not physically counted. The counting is done on the paper and surely includes those at least 20-30% whose where abouts are not known. In each course in each department, on an average 20-30% students are not accounted, we reckoned. We did a count with the help of an UG admin staff 2 years ago, looking at students served by that UG centre, and discovered that 20-30% disappearance was a very conservative estimate. A few of us who did this count for that UG centre discovered also that students who were withdrawn in our courses were put back ! Registry blamed UG centre and UG centre blamed the depts. Circular blame game. These data were passed on to the senior management. The AL, head of that centre was not happy about our numbers naturally. He needed to protect his salary and bonus, and always gave the most optimistic student numbers. We even telephoned those students who were not withdrawn and mananged to catch a few of them working in as far away as Bradford while the class list for that year said they are continuing students!! We are coming back to the data integrity and HEFCE accusation. When the right total figure is arrived at, it will be well short of 28,000 or whatever the paper-based counting is. London Met is one hell of a mess. Closing it is the only solution. By taking on HEFEC, the union and the staff are well on the way to self-destruction and triggering London Met downsizing. HEFCE is not going to roll over and we are prepared to give the evidence. Govt will really save money when London Met closes. In practice, it is like merging London Met with all those 7 new universities I mentioned, except the staff. As for new entries to first year, the new univeristies entries from overseas in the first instance must be slashed and here is need for Greater London-wide rationalisation of new university sector.

You talk about students like they are cattle…. 4000 here 4000 there… no biggie do you have any idea how a sudden and unexpected influx of even 1000 new students with various levels of transcripts would affect a university? Do you have any idea what your suggestion would do to those students performance and how long it would take them to settle in the new Uni? At least spend a few seconds and think of the implications of your suggestions before you even touch your keyboard.

'Ex-LGU staff'- you make several valid points here: (a) the centrality of the data integrity issue, (b) the fact that London Met is 'one hell of a mess', and (c) 'taking on' HEFCE would be self-destructive. I don't share your view, however, that 'closing it is the only solution'; and I suggest, again, that the most constructive way forward is an independent, and thorough review of governance (board of governors and senior management, including HoDs and their associates), by a body with the authority to make the changes required to restore confidence in the (possibly new) senior management and in the university. London Met has an important role to play within the education landscape. In such a huge institution (13 campuses across London) there will always be pockets of negativity; but there are many committed staff working there, and many, many committed students. The responsibility for this crisis lies with the senior management. LMet staff (both ex-LGU and ex-UNL) and students should not have to suffer the consequences of a failing management. If the university is to survive, we must work together to move forward.

Independent Review? You are cleverly twisting my argument about the data integrity. If you read carefully, the data modification occurred at the UG cntre level and departmental levels. The registry went with what these two said. Roper and his team minons might have been culpable on ther things like expanding a sink university will nilly, but they cannot be solely held responsible for the data problem that HEFEC is so exercised about. Hence any review should include root and branch right at the lecturer and admin staff levels all of whom contributed in their own ways to this debacle We felt that the major mistake was to put in these so called UG centres which were not fit for purpose. the ALs the UG heads were out for empire building. Again, I come to the point that I was making. London Met is heavily bloated,its total student numbers is seldom headcounted, the structure from the senior management downwards to lecturer and admin staff level is duplicated and dysfunctional and closure is the best option. Fumugation is not the solution. Taking on HEFCE might make some union leaders heroes for a minute but they are pied pipers leading the staff down the path to oblivion. Govt wouldn't worry if London Met closes. Your ploy about blaming the senior management only it is a typical union stance.

I am touching my key pad after looking at the shambles from the LGU trenches and from outside. You forget that we are in an age of Information technology, global enterprise databases, E-business and the rest. It is the question of database transfers as far as admin is concerned. Closing a University within a time span of a few months or even 1 year is not a big deal. We are not digging under the seadbed for linking Britain to France. If closure notice is given at the end of the academic year, students allocation to other universities can take place in Summer and in December when students can be moved in groups. The MScs are 1 year, the 3rd year students will graduate, and it is only the 1st to 2nd years and 2nd to 3rd years need looking after. No wonder that Brits have so much problems when it snows or rains with their transport and bleat when EU residentc come nd do the job. I would even invite a few East European admin staff who would gladly do the job which the Brits say is impossible. We fought second world war and came out succesful. Handled the Blitz (The trendy teachers do not teach this history as they say it upsets immigrants and the lefties).

I cannot help laughing reading the posts here from London Met lecturers. I dropped out early this year after attending the first semeter and my buddy did the same. We were not really qualified to do the degree. I had just 1 A level E grade and GCSE fails and Us. I telephoned the clearing in the Summer of 2008, and was transferred to a lecturer. He listened to me and asked me about my background. He said I should attend a maths test which I did and did not pass. My buddy gave almost a blank sheet back. We were asked to comeback next day when we met two lecturers, one of them wanted both of us to his campus near Aldgate. After a few mins talk between the two lecturers which sounded like a deal, I was given a degree course in Hololway Road and my buddy was allocated to a course in the campus near Aldgate. This course needed some maths background we didn't have any. The first semseter was a disaster for both of us. Most of our class mates were from overseas and had difficluties in communicating with English. They used this excuse for not attending lectures. we were surprised how the Student Loan Company was duped by a few of these oversas students who claimed loans as home students. The checks are flimsy and done by the local councils and they phone the university if they have queries. London Met must have cleared these students as home students! There were 10 all of whom landed in this country in Summer 2008 for the first time in their lives. When asked, they said it was well known in their country how easy to enroll in London Met and get the loans. The lecturers did not bother to take attendance even though they knew there were only a few in their classes. They too had difficulties in their subjects and all around it was a joke. My buddy and I realised that even after spending one whole semester , we learnt nothing by way of education, we were not ready and neither were lecturers. We met with other students, it was difficult to find students who could speak English. The student loan fee scam seem well spread. Many told us that they were entered as home students when they checked at the registry, they wouldn't say how butwere happy to get their loan money. They felt that they were doing London Met a service as London Met got also the fees from the Loan Company. I knew that I was wasting at London Met , I was 19 and after thinking decided to drop out . I have enrolled in Open Uni for a certificate course and am studying to complete my A levels at the same time. London Met did me a favour. I want to go to a good university after working hard and achieving good A levels. I bump into my foreign class mates from time to time, they seem happy not going to lectures and getting paid by the Loan Company for being here calling themselves as home students as that is what London Met says about them!!! I can give names of the two lecturers who admitted us, the names of the lecturers who taught us God knows what, and whether they know too. About the fee scam and disappearing students, it is for the university to investigate. I wonder whether they will do.

London Met drop out student I believe what all you said. I would also add that I have seen a few of my former colleagues taking up second jobs during the week, on days which they say they are working from home.

I am sorry I overestimated you... I had assumed you were not thinking when you were typing away but obviously I was wrong, my fear that you do treat students like cattle is actually a reality...who cares about their welfare when we can move numbers at a touch of a button from here to there right? I pity your current poor students if they receive the same treatment unless of course you are not an academic but an ex-LGU admin staff and then it all makes sense to me....

to Ex-LGU staff My current university is ranked within the top 5. No chance of it suffering London Met's ignimony. Our dropout rates are almost nil, progression 99% and we take good students and not what 'London Met drop out student'says. Read what London Met drop out student is saying about you all. But then London Met staff have no shame in their poor teaching skills. That apart, I guess you have reading and comprehending difficulties. Not surprised that you are a deadwood among the deadwood who are left in London Met these days. I did say the students should be reallocated to other new universities in groups. Look at where these 7 other universities are with their tube stations nearby, except Herts. But Herts campus has excellent facilities, student digs and the place is not expensive. My neighbour's 13 year old kid goes there to a good school commuting from London. Unlike London Met, all these 7 new universities have better reputation and are on UK university league tables. The students come to London Met as they can't get in to these new universities. From education point of view it is a good move for them. They have to commute only within greater London by tube. I do not know who you are and from your ignorant comments I assume that you do not know that the majority of London Met students do not come from local boroughs. .Schools and colleges in Camden, Islington, Harringey and even Tower Hamlets do not send their kids to London Met as these kids have A levels and go to UCL, City Univ, QMW etc.. London Met recruits from the school leavers who could not pass their GCSEs and A levels. These students are mainly from Boroughs like Lambeth, Lewisham, and from other inner cities like Liverpool, Manchester etc.. for them it makes no difference as long as they go to an university at a reasonable commuting distance. As far overseas students it does not matter whether it is London Met or Greenwich U and most of them do not attend anyway. Except your welfare, you will be unemployed and you are shamless not to admit it, the students when transferred go to London's other new and better universities. I am not asking them to go Scotland. But then I should not be surprised by a lecturer who recruited and taught the 'London Met drop out student'

WAO!!! I didn’t know that some of the top 5 Universities pay their lecturers to spend time writing negative comments about our lowly new universities… I feel humbled by your presence oh omnipotent Professor. I now believe in you the only the true Messiah with the power of prophesy and absolute solution in the brain cells of your glorious and beautiful being. Please do direct us to one of your great papers so that we too may learn from the beauty of your celebrated wisdom, or perhaps suggest to us one of your textbooks so that we can queue outside your spacious Professorial office and get an autograph so that we may be complete in life once and for all!

Judging by these inane comments London Metropolitan is clearly some kind of out-of-control mental establishment and the sooner it is closed the better.

to ex-LGU staff Despite your attempt to change the topic, let me come back to your ignorance of not knowing that local students do not enroll at London Met, and hence it does not matter where the London Met students are relocated in any of the 7 universties. They can travel by public transport. They will go to better universities, learn under better lecturers, get degrees which carry some weight and it is a win-win situation. Keep on at your work of saving your job, as you will not going to get any with your CV bearing London Met experience. Let me leave Roper to do his work of jettisoning a few hundreds like you. You have busy placards carrying days ahead! I will leave you to get to work on those placards.

London Met is one big nut house inhabited by lunatics calling themselves as lecturers. Open the gates and let all the students out, and then close the gates to keep these lunatics secuerly inside until the law picks them. No wonder HEFCE brands this institution under 'risky category' as all they go was garbled numbers junk which made no sense!!!

And how did you deduce that I had such ignorance? Is this the type of critical thinking you teach your students? My previous posts had a very clear message and that was to highlight the fact that you show little or no respect to student welfare. You cannot even make a valid argument yet you try to tell us you are working in a top 5 University… as the cleaner perhaps… mind you I have plenty of respect for cleaners who do not pose as people that “know it all”… If you did not want me to pick on that gigantic statement of yours then why you felt it necessary to tell us all you are working in such a glorious top 5 University… oh and thank you for worrying about us losing our jobs… you have given us hope you know… when an idiot of your stature gets a job in a top 5 university even as a cleaner, I perhaps have a chance of getting a job as the cleaners assistant! See you in the next Mensa convention Professor....

Poly of NL and Leeds Poly were two modest institutions serving local customers, who were not academically qualified for university study, nevertheless could learn skills the country desperately needed by attending the ourses at the two polys. Leslie Wagner, as the director of PNL in 1980s, through his singular ineptitude, reduced PNL to a depth of depravity . The Poly had enough of him. Then he went to Leeds U in 1994, after Leeds Poly fell into the trap of calling itself an university like PNL did. After Wagner left then LMU, Prof Lee who was unlike him was appointed to expand the university which was in tatters. Likewise, Brian Roper was made VC to carry UNL 'forward' whatever it meant. Now Leeds Met whose VC has resigned and that Met is reportedly in financial mess, and now calls for Brian Roper to quit and London Met, this Met is too in a financial mess! Both Mets has had shaky past and Leslie Wagner the common factor? The third Met, Manchester Met seems to be doing OK. Is it because of no Icy hands of Leslie Wagner there?

to ex-LGU staff Can sympathise with you who is operating with a minimal brain cells. I am afraid you will not get short-listed even for the cleaning assistant vacancy. Have you ever tested your employability outside the walls of London Met? If you did, you would be really worried now. London Met work experience is an albatross around your neck. Hence all of you are fighting like alley cats to save your jobs. I suggest a good dose of medication to keep you going when the sky falls on London Met. How is that playcard construction progressing?

to ex-LGU staff What is the welfare of students you are talking about, and how are their welfare going to be affected if say London Met students are reallocated to other new universities which are better than London Met with good lecturers and at travelling distances in London? We who are students in London Met are kept in a perpetual state of anxiety as good lecturers have left and now, the bad ones who cannot go anywhere except home, are on a war path to fight HEFCE to the finish to own save their jobs. We would happily leave if we are reallocated to any university in London. We have done some research and all universities with full-time students, with the exception of London Met are on the university league table, they have very clear progression policies, they are not in financial mess and they are stable. We students do not care about the VC or senior management as we want to complete our courses. Could you drop this red herring called 'welfare' a patronsing word which is a smoke screen to keep your jobs. If London Met closes, do we worry? No. You forget we are in buyers market and we are the buyers. The other new universities want us. We sent explorative applications and got offers of admissions.

London Met let us down: You are spot on when you say : London Met lecturers are on a war path to fight HEFCE to the finish to own save their jobs". Just read a lecturer who variously calls himself 'Fight back London Met' 'Fight without placards' and 'Fight' using just the terms. He/she was rude, self-congratulatory and was like a person possessed, comparing LSE students and saying how they can stand on their own legs. I would like to go to LSE if I can so that I too can stand on my own legs leaving such person on the border of lunacy in the asylum called London Met. My parents are working hard to send me to the university and like you I feel strongly that I too am let down by lecturers like the above and 'to ex-LGU staff'. My' welfare' is already affected as we are taught by those who themselves are in need of education. As you say good lecturers have left the university. I did well in the recent exams and that should give me strength. Like you, I am not interested in the politics about VC and the senior management. My cousin says that London Met lecturers always let students down. The last time, about 4-5 years ago, she says they went on strike, picketing her exam building and refusing to mark the answer scripts. It was May exams and her graduation was delayed as she got her results very late. She is the one who is urging me to leave now. My worry is if I stay longer, these irresponsible lecturers will go on strike in this May, boycotting exams hurting the students again. I am in touch with a couple of universities for transfers and hopefully will get out of London Met soon.

Unistats I am afraid I disagree with you. I studied and worked in other universities. I worked in London Met. My relatives worked in London Met, three of my cousins studied for a couple of years in London Met and left after finding it not satisfactory to say politely. In all our experineces it is by far the worst university in Britain. As far Low UCAS points, London Met runs the clearing longest, recruits students who are underqualified, and is the only university that has no proper data to supply for The Times, to get on to Good University Guide. As for student satisfaction survery all kinds of thngs come in. London Met students may be happy because they can go on on the register for 5-6 years without graduation, without progressing and without attending classes and working at the sametime. This is not negative, this is telling the truth. It was a mistake a llaround by Govt and HEFCE for letting London Met to go on as it has done. This problem of London Met , the data and its correctness has been there, we were aware of it , warned about it and nothing was done. It is not as if it has happened now.

"I am not a unionist, I am not a fat cat, I am not afraid for my job but I am getting a little demoralised by all the negativity not just from this forum but also by how badly my university handles this situation… if only they listened to any of the marketing professors I am sure they would have explained to them the paradox of transparency in times of PR crisis… " Sounds like you are blaming the management whiichbis fair but London Met woes go much deeper than the student-the quality of students it recruits from only clearing route in almost all faculties, the quality of staff, as the posts says good one have left, the whole structure from VC downwards to the dept level, and this is compouned by the serious discripancies in data returns which is much worse than Kingston U as the clawback demanded reportedly is about 30 million. All these cannot be masked by PR exercises. However well we presented London Met as the best university for pupils in schools and colleges during our presentations on the recruiting round, it did not resonate with teachers and pupils in schools and students in colleges. They all were studying A levels and were interested in going to institutions like City U, UCL and QMW. If London Met has to improve, its definition of wider access should have at its core a cast Iron minimum entry educational qualification, may be pitched less than what old universities require but not relaxing the A level/IB or equivalent requirements. By elasticating the argument that A level/IB grades alone are not enough and somehow it has found the answers with students with no A levels and GCSE failures who are ready to come to London Met, has been the biggest folly. For the latter students, there is the Open University, which takes them module by module in stages giving them 5-6 years to complete. It is unrealistic with the kind of students that London Met recruits to expect them to complete UG degrees in 3 or even 4 years. London Met has to make its decision what it should be and should do. No use in twisting the mantra of 'wider access' which does not mean dropping minimum entry level standards and standards all around and still expecting its degrees to be of the same value as got from Russell Group universities. If the product is bad, no amount of PR exercise is going to mask the bad elements of it. That marketting people know well.

to: London Met arguably the worst I am not saying we don’t have our problems and there is always bias with any data. And the reason why we don’t appear to the Good Universities Guide is not because we don’t have the data is simply because the VC refuses to make it available to the papers. You can find his statement as to his reasons for not doing so on the londonmet.ac.uk website. to: PR alone is not enough You completely missed my point, masking the truth and spinning was completely the opposite what I was suggesting. Please just Google the "Paradox of transparency" it will take you 2 minutes so you can understand my argument. I am suggesting that the Uni should be transparent in all its activities to all stakeholders. For me having to search the newspapers to find an update about my Uni is anything but transparent. The reason why I felt necessary to comment on the quality of the students is because it’s the only thing that really offends me when people say we don’t have enough good students when last year alone 3 of my UGs have gone to red brick universities to do a Postgraduate course. Anyone who blames the students should look to their shortcomings in inspiring students…my two cents…

Unistats I di not say London Met has not got data. It has. Have you ever wondered why Roperhas refused the data to the papers? Don't you think that after this data fiasco, Roper's data would have shown London Met in such poor light ( coming right at the bottom of the Universities League table), that he and his team may have questions to answer and the best approach is hide the data from scrutiny by Good Universities Guide? I did not misuderstand you. Just as the data for papers will show how bad the university is, any one who knows PR will say that the application of transparency in an institution like London Met can do more harm than good. Hence " if only they listened to any of the marketing professors I am sure they would have explained to them the paradox of transparency in times of PR crisis…" will not work. Again, you wrongly diagnose the current problems London Met has and the way it is viewed as a mere 'PR crisis' and this makes me laugh as I must have worked in a different London Met than yours. In my experience of a few years, there was only one student who went to a red brick univ for a masters and that too for a course that univ had slack that year. I do not see any future for this university if it recruits all students during clearing, not applying minimum accepatble entry requirements for first year degrees, and importing students from outside the EU who couldn't get admissions in their own countries. Perhaps as a polytechnic again with redefined aims and objectives it might just survive.

To “London Met arguably the worst”. you clearly stated in your first post that (in your own words) “London Met( …..)and is the only university that has no proper data to supply for The Times” then in your second post you say “I did not say London Met has not got data. It has”..... You also stated in your first post that you and your family have worked or studied in most Universities in the UK therefore you deduce that (in your words again) “it is by far the worst university in Britain”. In order for you to be able to make such a statement you would have had to have your family and relatives study or work in ALL of the British Universities…. Sure you are entitled to an opinion but you cannot make such statements and expect thinking people to accept them as fact..... I disagree that transparency will do more harm than good. In the student satisfaction survey Londonmet appears third from the bottom. If the data was released I believe Londonmet would appear with the 5 last but not bottom. Certain departments would be at least at the top 10 in their field (please do not tell me next, that your friends/relatives have worked and studied in all the depts. of Londonmet). This would enable us to set a strategy and climb up the ranks and achieve motivation and pride for our colleagues and students.

Unistats You can keep your confidence about London Met and look for positives where none exists. One need not attend all the universities in this country to say London Met is arguably the worst. Its the quality of student intake, its scandals in recent years- as media reported, a student was able to collect tens of thousands of pounds from student loan company by enrolling in a number ocf courses in London Met, an alqueda operator as a student built a terrorist cell in an portacab parked inside the university...and this can only happen in London Met. This data return fiasco , HEFECE is indirectly saying that millions were hived off from it by London Met, 30 millions, no other new university has achieved this notoriety. You only have to go around just 4 local schools and a local college to know why they do not want their students to come to London Met and indeed London Met is often used as a threat to say where the students will land if they do not study well in their GCSE and A levels. You are a brave person to battle for this failing and third rate university and your transparency will end in exposing more worms underneath the London Met woodwork. As I said, London Met has a chance, just a chance if it reverts back what it was-PNL by shrinking and by recruiting home students in need of vocational education forgetting the degrees, the expansion nonsense, twisting the 'widening access concept' and recruiting thousands of overseas students who the universties and coleges in their won countries would not admit them. If it does not, HEFCE and govt should step in. Some are saying close this institution and allocate its students to other new universities in London.

I agree with 'Unistats: there have been too many uninformed 'opinions' expressed on this blog - unsupported by evidence, unsubstantiated, with contents that amount to little more than mud-slinging. It is very easy to jump on a bandwagon and perpetuate rumour and misinformation; and one can only speculate as to the motivation of those doing just that on this blog. Everyone is entitled to an opinion (and academic debate leaves room for more than one view on a subject); but uninformed prejudice isn't helpful here. Please bear in mind what is at stake here - the future of a large number of staff, an even larger number of students, and an institution. What this blog does reveal is the need for hard facts; and the only way these will be revealed is through an independent enquiry. This, in my view, would be the best way forward - no knee-jerk reactions, no mud-slinging, but rather a cool review of the actual situation and its cause(s), by an independent body with the authority to take any action required. Only then can real, informed decisions be made.

the only students who want to go to londonmet are the students that are not able to get into a decent university. and even then, once those students get their loans & bursaries, they would rather drop out and work in the local kebab shop. that says it all. and sadly, the quality of teaching reflects this. the reason Roper never wants londonmet in the GUG league table is because he knows londonmet will be at the bottom of the table.

'londonmet is a garbage dump' - your posting is a very good example of the uninformed prejudice to which I referred. You criticise the quality of teaching when there is, in fact, a robust mechanism in place to monitor the quality of teaching, which involves external examiners from other universities; and although there may be some variance in quality across the university, the external examiners within the subject area in which I work have commented that the work produced is as good as - and in some cases better than - that produced by other insititutions. You comment on the motivation of the students who attend Londonmet, when - in my ten years of teaching at the university - the students I have encountered have (with the odd exception) been motivated and hard working, and many have achieved good degrees and gone on to achieve further success in their chosen field. I cannot provide an educated view on the motivation of the VC, so on this I will not comment. On the rest, however, there is hard evidence available. Mud-slinging contributes little to this discussion.

On Ways Forward: "external examiners from other universities" What a load of nonsense. The last department I worked had external examiners who were i) the former colleague of the HOD or a senior staff ii) the staff member who worked in the same department a few years ago!! Obviously you are ignorant of how they are appointed. There is quality process for appointment but in reality the quality units of new universities are more than willing to have names who are prepared to do the work fo ra pittance. More often they are friends of the exiting staff working in other universities. The world and his wife does not believe that London Met is fit for purpose.

In London Met, a colleague in another department said that his current head of the department is the person who was the external validator of new courses in that department just a few months ago!!! This external examiner and QAA visits ( which often fails or reluctant to pick up drop outs, poor progression.._) are a joke. I will be the first to say we are not delivering and that alone will sink this university.

'London Met arguably the worst': in regard to the appointment of external examiners, I speak from ten years of experience within my department, so can give a fairly informed view on this subject; and certainly (although I recognise that I cannot speak for every course in every department across thirteen campuses), within our department, the appointment of externals has been according to rigorous criteria. The external examiners themselves are professionals in their field, usually appointed as externals because this professionalism is widely recognised. The external examiners' reports are published on the university intranet; and they are based on the evidence collected by each external examiner over a number of courses. I am speaking here of (a) robust procedures for appointment of externals, (b) examiners who are independent of the university and hold positions of responsibility elsewhere, and (c) the measurable evidence they collect. The integrity of this mechanism is crucial to the maintenance of quality of academic standards, not just at London Met, but in all universities across the UK. I'm guessing that by 'the world and his wife' you actually mean yourself; and I would repeat again my view that mud-slinging contributes little to this discussion.

On Ways Forward: I too had had a decade of experience in London Met. You forget to mention, conveniently that the external examiners are picked from a data base maintianed by the quality unit and the department replenishes this with names. You are giving the mission statement which always sounds grand. First, Are you challenging the " London Met " staff who is your colleague and what he says about the external validator? This person a potential headship candidate was hardly neutral. Second, I can give the names of the Depts and the external examiners who were for years were externals. A few of them were mere senior lecturers ,even though a PL is the norm, yes, they had professional qualifications and these days even the reputed professional societies give memberships and they can upgrade to fellowships. Were they upto it is another matter. . Yes they write reports which are on University forms and are published. Again you show your ignorance about how these reports end up finally in the format one publicly sees. The external examiner ssend reports which are even moderated by the quality unit( dept), in the form of raising queries on paragraphs. I had seen for example a battle between the externals and quality unit ( behind them the dept) about certain paragraphs of the external examiners reports which were highly critical. The external examiners get a fee of about £400 and the expenses travel etc,.. and the externals get the fees and reimbursed expenses only after their reports are received and looked at. The best weapon the quality unit has is passing the fees and expenses .They can delay it for months to put pressure. To avoid this, the usual procedure is to 'appoint ones who the dept knows. Please do me a favour. Pick external examiners reports from any university web pages, in fact all universities in this country publish them in some form, and show me a report in any university which is highly critical of the qualityand assessment processes of that university. I can save you the bother- you will not find any. Does this mean all the universities in UK are excellent in every dept?Just repeating the mission statements and wish lists does not help. All those who are critical were once academics like you in London Met whose views are shared by the a majority of existinf staff, some of whom even post under the name of Ex-London Met or Ex-LGU staff HEFCE clawback and the media reported (BBC, news papers) episodes of student who could easily enroll for multiple courses and defraud the student Loan Comapny with ease and the student who built a Bin Laden cell in the university pemises are not signs of a functioning university.

If the data returns from the university are not believed by HEFCE, who is going to believe the external examiners reports? Is not London Met has a big credibility problem?

'London Met arguably the worst' - I do wonder why any divergence from your view is treated with hostility and insults ('again you show your ignorance'). Please note that (i) in my department, at least, the externals are NOT selected from a database maintained by the Quality Unit. I know this because I personally approached two appropriate academics who - after they had been through the subsequent process of appointment - became external examiners for our department. Both were senior academics in reputable universities, with publication records; (ii) at least one of our externals, although very positive about the courses, has been quite critical of the institution. There is no denying that there are aspects of the institution which deserve criticism. I think, however, if criticism is to be constructive and to lead to an improvement in the situation, it has to be reviewed by an independent body, and the criticism has to be supported by clear evidence rather than sensationalism. If you are right, there are, clearly, different practices taking place in different parts of the university; and perhaps this is something which needs to be looked at. 'Ex-LGU staff' - there is really no comparison between information originating from LMet senior management and that originating from hundreds of independent academics across the UK. Are you now saying that all these independent academics are not credible? Once again, I would suggest that this blog reveals the need for hard facts; and the best way (in my view) of moving forward is an investigation of the cause(s) of the current difficulties by an independent body with the authority to make the changes necessary to restore confidence in the institution.

On Ways Forward... I and "London Met arguably the worst" were commenting only on London Met when you suggested that external examiners, the neutral experts, have given excellent reports on London Met. Just do not coflate it with other good universities in the UK. They are not in the terminal state as London Met is. In my earlier dept the QAA visit completely missed the appalling drop out and low progressing figures, just like the Oftsead gave a clean bill of health for sociall services of harringey council where the child was abused and murdered. You might have invited Oxbridge/LSE/Imperial academics as external examiner s( just why would they harm their own reputation by putting on their CVs that they were external examiners in this wonderful international institution called London Met and looking at the pathetic exam results is beyond me. Again it depends on what one would call senior and reputable academics), but in my old department a BinLladen -look alike figure, a retired bloke who must have retired ages ago, and another so called academic from another new university, who shied away from board meetings as a few knew her as a very junior person in that university and she could not face this. I would not give credence to these peoples' reports. Roper could not face the scrutiny of the data by even The Times Good Univesity Guide team, and hence London Met stands alone as 'untouchable' university in full-time education. No one is going to believe whatever you say as London Met is the worst of its kind. The fact that it has to recruit almost all of its students in clearing weeks which runs twice as long in any other new university, it had to use its overseas agents to scour as many bodies as they can ignoring the minimum entry points which are already the lowest among new universities, and the fact its home students most of them have no A levels/IB levels or its equivalents, all the above were the drivers s for the drop out rates in excess of 50% in many departments and low progression rates mainly contributed to the so called discripancies in data returns. The credibility gap this institution suffers from is as wide as the diffrence between the HCEFCE reported clawbacks for Kingston U (2 million) and London Met (30 million). Any one with even a dozen brain cells can see that London Met is not fit for purpose. Independent investigation body is a waste of money and time, and it will have to look at all levels from lecturers and lowly departmental admin staff to Roper and managemnet since 2002. One can smell a rotten fruit, no need to cut and probe it. Letting London Met sink is the best way forward.

Ex-LGU staff: I agree with what you say. "On Ways Forward" says that in his/her department external examiners were Nobel Prize Winners. For me too, why would these shining academics would like to blot their CVs by associating with London Met is beyond any one's comprehension. If one goes to the Strand Campus of King's College/UCL/Imerial, one would read the names of great scientists, literary figures, leaders like Gandhi (UCL) who were the alumni of these colleges. London Met could give similarly two names- 1. the name of the student who by enrolling in multiple departments ( "On Ways Forward" could clarify whether his department had the privilege of enrolling this student too), defrauding the Student Loan Company tens and thousands of pounds and was convicted. 2. the student who set up the Alqueda cell in a portacab inside the Holloway Road buildng, just oposite to the wonderful 'super lab' where he was a science student, no need to guess why. Against this singular students, external examiners reports in this university, even if one were to believe this, pales into insignifance.

'Ex-LGU staff' - 'anyone with a dozen brain cells can see...', 'independent investigation body [sic] is a waste of money and time...', 'one can smell a rotten fruit, no need to cut and probe it...'. This was the kind of logic that led to the burning of 'witches'. Haven't we moved on a bit since then? There is much that needs changing at LMet; but there's also a great deal of good there. Wouldn't it be more constructive to look at the HEFCE situation as an opportunity for change, rather than just giving up?

Sounds very serious. May be London Met first needs investigation by Interpol, special branch Scotland yard, the intelligence services and The home Office, before doing anything that "On Ways Forward" suggests. I heard lecturers complain that the so called overseas students that Bickerton Mob brings in hardly attend lectures, some from NW Frontiers do not speak English at all.

'Ex-LGU staff' - you cite two students: what about the other 34,998 students? It seems you have already made up your mind, and there's little point in any rational discussion. It does look as if there will be the opportunity for voluntary redundancy; and maybe this will be the appropriate choice for some. For those who value what's good about London Met, and want to improve what isn't, there will be much work to be done, on a number of levels, to recover from this crisis; and this work must be grounded on an independent enquiry to establish a factual basis on which to move forward.

On ways Forward: These two students show the dysfunctional London Met. they were not accused of parking on double yellow lines. As was argued in postings, the inept Major govt capitulated and allowed former polys to declare themselves univesities, and they did closing technician courses for fancy degree courses. But yet, London Met stands alone with its data problems in industrial scale. Despite your dogged determination to keep London Met breathing, did it ever occur to you that the figure 34,998 may be suspect. Is this the figure on paper? Any one cared to find out the correct figure, if so how did they arrive at this figure? While checking my class lists, I reached my absentee students in all kinds of places far away from London during term time. A few of them were tracked in Lahore, Calcutta, Kualalumpur.. and were surprised that they were still on class list. It is not beyond the bounds of probabilty that atleast 20% of them are ghost students. In the departments I compared notes with, the average pecentage of ghost students was over 30%. As some one suggested, a time span of an year given, recruitment frozen to zero, final year students allowed to graduate, gving one resit, and the rest those progressing from 1 to 2nd year and from 2nd yeat to 3rd year around 20,000 as some one argued above can be reallocated to 7 other new universities in London and near London. All these universities can be reached by public transport. As some one argued, given London Met does not recruit from local boroughs ( Islington, Camden etc..) in numbers, closure of London Met means students go to better universities than London Met. In the case of London Met, there is weariness I undertand in HEFCE, and there will be no enthusiasm for London Met in serial data discripancies over years to indulge in independent enquiry so that the UCU members of London Met can wave placards up and down Holloway Road or Minories or London Wall for weeks. Independent enquiries are a means of kicking the ball into a long grass. Never work. IIndependent enquiries like Hutton enquiry did no good. Several Royal commissions came and went and not much tangible done. London Met closure is hardly the closure of ship yards and car plants. Why would the govt worry. It will put an end the practices of Bickerton mob flooding the institution with so called students who disppear within weeks( relief for Home Office) packing degree classes with home students who should be in a vocational course like HNC..

Hopeless. And I'm not talking about the university.

"Sounds very serious. May be London Met first needs investigation by Interpol, special branch Scotland yard, the intelligence services and The home Office,"...... and the Fraud Squad may also want to have a few words with Roper & Nelson over the state of londonmet's finances.

Roper is a firm believer in outsourcing. He will be getting advice on which departments to shut down & which departments can be completely outsourced to external providers. For starters: Print Centre, Estates, & ISS.

35K students is no surprise, that figure would look small in comparison to the result of someone making a 'freedom of information' request to ask exactly how many 'active' student accounts exist on the universities network system.

Hey guys, you looking very deep... For the starters, no matter how big organisaitons is 50 millions is big ammount, and not to understand that you ar eoverpaid is really not true.. Overwise what kind of idio*t give u such job? London Met's problems are not about money to begin.. Think about quality vs quantity, and qwe know which way London Met chose.. People's level in this uni is appaling (undergraduates).. All people whi are trying to get A or even B grades are from Europe, West or East but in 3 terms I didnt met single normal sutdent with uk citizenship... So how system works? Simply: you recruit every isngle perosn who apples (even their internal english test is a joke, people do more difficult assignment in year 8 at school, eastern europe example).. After taking all people, you introduce magic word TEAMWORK (blaming industries demands)... because strangly their system always generates timetables in such way, thatpeople hardly ever will have the same seminars. so it means few good persons are in different ones. You have mayeb 1 A capability student, 2 complete idio*s (and very often under influence of drugs even in ht emorning) followed by 2 C level studnets... If oyu try to kick them out, you will get accussed yurself by not trying to get valuable experience bla bla bla by PAAs.. So if you still want A, in the end you do everything on your own... As you run out of time you will get just B.. But look not just you but at least 3 or 4 whi was suppose to be fialed... Okm some of them will never even bother to come to uni for exam, but part of them will pass.. And uni sneds people without chance of ever getting better job as mcdonalds assistant manager into year 2!!! Voila money ar eflowing.. 2nd staff... In all honesty, there is huge staff shoertage already (non academic).. But wait... Proble is not in redundancies... Problem is in tha tpeople.. Jobs should staym, but absolute majority of non acadmeic staff should go and really sooner the better... I mean they are tlaking about workloads bla bla bla.. What relaity is? Go and see... Whenever and wherever you go you will find staff having a laugh, having a coffee, having a chat or sitting on facebook.. UG centres... 20 students waiting, 2 advising (with a rat eof 1 perosn every 20 minutes) and others basically having a morning laugh.. Plus they are mainly inompetent and do not care what they do.. Peoples results get missing, you advised inccorectly about basic things such as mitigaitng circumstances, now busaries are delayed for some mystyrious reasons, as according to SLC due to London Met not confirming students attendence... Wau, is it a service for ehat people paying thousands? One more part, it looks that London Met exceeded their capacity.. People a having for lectures and seminars over 5 days sometimes... Lectures: few acadmeics are outstanding in business school.. And others? I mean do I want to listen about somebodys CV for 5 weeks in a row? Imean guys, people have a lifes and jobs in order to be here... And now they are forced to come into conflicts with UG centres just because they are not waisting all day for a lecture which last 20 minutes consists of simple reading of the slides? I can do it at home myself to be honest... For the end les think about future.. Me as many people I know who obtain good grades in year one doing one simple thing: applying again to naother uni... Because there is no any guarantees to obtain highst degree no matter ehat i do.. And this movement just becoming bigger and bigger, because people whio want to reach something in live have no choice but leave.. Let's face it I am not some kind of gneious but just perosn who is not 18 anymore and who thinks and work for degree.. But what's the point to work if in order to get B grades all you need to do is to get 1 day, 2 books, intenret access... And that's about it.. Done it with one of my modules and was schocked then for such high quality work managed to obtian B+... So to summarise my main idea is tha tthis uni is for lazy local people... Who comes to uni basiclaly to obtain and waist studnet support and have easier life for as long as it is possible.. No mephasis on learning whatsoever... Really only one thing is good in this uni: It is called markeitng department... Because they are doing highest profile misselling I ever saw in my life, just only hope that comments and info from reference groups will have huge affect in the future.. As I already see tha tfrom my personal experience - even just startedprocess of changing uni now, but jusrt form sdiscussions with other people I can say that another 3 people are doing the same... And Im relaly fa rthe not a single perosn who is feeling comletely misled in this uni with beutiful name which onl yshort of extra 2 words.. London Metropolitan University for No-Hopers.. P.S. Sorry for the language, facebook's influence...

Reading your post and the language used, I can well believe you are a typial London Met student! You may be pulling our legs to demonstrate to the wide world how a london Met student sounds!! May be an academic staff, cleverly disguising in Faceggo lingua!!!

London Met has set itself a rather impossible task, to be an inclusive university open to all regardless of suitability. In order to achieve this they must offer a wide selection of degrees a-z focussing on no particular field. This non unique status spreads the universities resources too thinly over a wide variety of fields. Instead of focussing on the core subjects, they offer near worthless degree titles. In addition they admit far too many students, such that the admin department cannot cope with the volume. Some degree subjects are run very well I am told, and the university has a particularly good reputation in social science, with some of their academics producing world class research. This is a good example of how the university can improve; a shortage of academics is better that employing non-academics to teach university standard courses. London met's current problems can only be solved with a completely new management team. The staff and students need confidence in the leadership of the university and a fresh approach would be welcomed by all. The new management would need to set higher standards and be stricter with students and staff. In particular the amount of re-sit examinations is worrying. I hope London Met succeeds and becomes a first rate university, because many of the staff and students deserve better.

Londonb Met should reamin a local university jus as its predecessor PNL was. Stop recruiting students from overseas for whom Britain has no rsponsibility of applying 'widening acccess' so that poorly qualified students can be recruited through agents, hundreds of them around the world. The current problem is self-inflcited. Applying deliberatley progression rules for students who did not complete modules just to keep the numbers up. Counting drop outs as active students. This was done in the progression boards, departments, UG centres and the lot. Everyone from lecturers onwards did not protest and happily participated in this faulty exercise to keep the students numbers up on paper. There were failure rates in excessive of 50-60% which were masked and resits given even to those who did not attend any lectures. So it is not the management who did it but lecturers, subject leaders, HODs, UG centre and registry. Simply new mangement will keep the bad apples at the dept levels-there are plenty of them. The wayfoward is to shrink this third rate university. Excellence in research? You must be joking ! The RAE2008 was flawed. London Met is a third rate university and always will be . It is a poor successor of PNL, the polytehchnic which was local and delivered vocational courses wll. Londo Met should become PNL if it has to survive ot otherwise close.

35,000 students is about a quarter of the number of the approximately 150,000 'live' student accounts on the system. So if LondonMet has been claiming HEFCE funding for 4 times the number of actual students over the last 5 years, its no wonder HEFCE are playing hardball to recover the overfunding.

Dear Colleagues We are sorry to announce that Brian Roper, Vice Chancellor and Chief Executive has decided to leave the University to take up the opportunity of early retirement and to pursue other interests. Brian has made a significant contribution to the University and on behalf of the Board of Governors we would like to pay tribute to his energy and determination in delivering the University’s mission and to thank him for his support and efforts in his time here. Although Brian will not be leaving the University until the end of December 2009, he has stepped down from the role of Vice Chancellor with immediate effect. We will communicate details of Brian’s successor in due course. Please join me in wishing Brian well in his future endeavours. Peter Anwyl Chair of the Board of Governors

Good, now the net step should follow of getting rid of the deadwood academic staff and shrinking this third rate university to a size that it becomes a local institution serving local students and not the pseudo world player applying the concept of 'wider participation' to those around the globe ( Britain has no empire and hence no responsibility globally). Closing must be an option.

Pure delirium. No one ese will go, except yourself when the new VC arrives and carries out the Summer clearing out!!

'To Governance, management and responsibility': I have no doubt that there will be changes. Its a real shame, however, that a small group of posters such as yourself cannot see further than your own vindictive little grudges. This is a time to stop petty bickering and to look, calmly and intelligently, at the wider picture, and to work towards rebuilding confidence in the university. If this means the exit of a small number of people with poisonous, negaitve and unhelpful views, and little to contribute to a constructive way forward, then so be it. They will not be missed. For the rest of us, this is a time to look to the future, and to how we can contribute to making it better.

Governance, management and responsibiity. Just a self-serving prattle. Roper left exposing the wood lices this institution has gathered. No one else in the management will go. The deputy VCs are here to stay. In the academic world, management waits for Spring and Summer. The classes will be winding down and students work for the exams. Time for the management to draw up plans in Spring and execute them in Summer. Watch out this Summer at London Met. Free from pressure of busy Winter, plan for the great cull will be put into action. 550 to go? some reckon twice this number as the student number audit reveal a big drop. Surprise, surprise!! With no Roper, Spring cleaning will start soon. At last Summer is arriving, London Met 's Body Mass index unacceptable as it is will see shredding of depts! As they say in academic world, Summer is the time to expect the bad news dropping on the mat!!!

'Summer is the time' (also posting under various other names on other blogs): same tired old message of doom and gloom. You'd make a great gravedigger. For those with a little more imagination, however, this is a time - as I have said before - to look to the future and to how we can contribute to making it better. If this means the exit of a small number of people with poisonous, negaitve, uninformed, unhelpful views, and little to contribute to a constructive way forward, then so be it.

The axe is not going to fall on us. We left this dump ages ago when LGU and the Old Floud sold us down the river next door. What is there in London Met for sunshine? It is a doomed institution and hence in one dept alone 50% left within the last 2 years. Dream on !!!

The day of reckoning for some is well nigh near. Rumour is that the first round of asking for volunteers for redundancies has just began. Best to get this over and done with asap. Also heard that in one dept this means that only about 35% of the total numbers in 2003-4 will be left after this round. In this dept,some accepted redundancie in 2006, generous ones these were ( ffed up with teaching the kind of students they were getting) and some retired ( lucky ones as they are free now from the radio active fall outs coming from London Met!!) and othesr moved onto other better universities before totally blotting their CV with London Met's experience. They were wiser heads. At this rate this university will be a single campus university. Good for London and good formaintaing HE standards with strict entry reuirements. Widening access does not mean taking on those who have primary level education!!!

Yesterday all members of staff heard from the interim vice chancellor (who is the previous Deputy, until an interim can be found from outside) saying that the redundancies must be pushed on with immediately. This is not the mesage that most of us got from the Chair of Governors. The previous Deputy also claimed that the Unions were standing in the way of finding the money to be repaid to Hefce, when in fact they are only querying the need to find that money from mass redundancies. They have already identified other possible sources for this re-payment, and just need the chance to discuss it with senior management. So what on earth is going on with that small coterie of people who surrounded the departed Brian Roper? Could it be that, considering their own days must be numbered, they're determined to take some sort of revenge, particularly on the rank and file of staff who dared to speak out against the irrationality and unworkabilty of a lot of senior management decisions? Is this as a result of the general and open rejoicing they witnessed on the news that Roper had gone? Surely not. This is very puzzling. Dr. Aylott - and those others of the small group around you who would not stand up to Roper, and owed your power to him - it's over! Please do not do any more damage before you go.

Bob Aylett should end the London Met convulsion which has gone on for a long time, by pushing the redunadancies through immediately which is what he is doing. UCU were always blocking the end of this shameful saga. I guess Bob Aylett will not cut and run as these UCU preachers are saying but push the 500 or so redundancies through asap. Good luck to him.

'Not puzzled at all': another graduate of the Mugabe School of Management. They're really coming out of the woodwork now. There's a really vindictive nasty streak amongst some of the posters, who seem to forget that the loss of even one job means the possible loss of career, livelihood, and even home of an individual, and the consequent hardship for his/her family - his/her partner and possibly children. Most academics have committed their whole working life to their vocation (and it IS a vocation). These are knowledgeable, skilled people who do the work they do, not for inflated salaries (the average salary of most lecturers is around 15% of that of the Vice Chancellor) but because they love their work. Are you suggesting that 550 of these staff (both academic and adminstrative) should be punished for the actions of a small group of 'executive management'? That their lives should be seriously damaged because they made the mistake of applying for a post at London Met? I agree with 'Puzzled Staff Member': there clearly ARE options open to the university other than redundancy; and the UCU would appear to be trying to explore these options, but are encountering unreasonable resistance from this elite little group. 'Not puzzled at all': you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, on either academic, management or human levels, and the nasty, gleeful grave-dancing tone of your blog comes across as simply vindictive. Don't you think the staff at London Met have suffered enough already? Or perhaps you'd like to see public flogging and execution too?

"That their lives should be seriously damaged because they made the mistake of applying for a post at London Met? " Get real. You had had chance to apply to other universities if you found London Met intolerable. Many did it and are happy in other universities. Thousands of jobs are being lost in the industry, not all of them because of economic down turn, many because of short term decisions taken by management. My friend an engineer lost his job after 10 years of serving a company, last year before the down turn hit their company and they lost contract bids competing with other European companies. He was getting the same salary as your SL with less experience gets with no continuance of his job year on year. There are no permanent or jobs for life in private engineering companies.They are not moaning like you and other posters here, and have moved on. If you care to read THES threads, you will see that jobs are lost in Strathclyde U, Warwick etc.. Grow up and move on..

'Not puzzled at all': You clearly have no understanding of the situation, and little humanity. Its so easy to be on the 'winning side' (or at least the one holding the power) isn't it? So easy, from your safe distance, to make pronouncements on the lives of other people? Breaking news: not everyone walks away when the going gets tough. Stay in your safe, sanctimonious little world where everything is black-and-white, and leave those with a little more integrity to deal with the more complex issues.

The company I work is not safe from forces. We are not public sector for the govt to come to our help. We lost jobs. We who knew London Met know that you are living in a fantasy world. The outburst from people like 'Snowball' in a sister thread, who obviously is a London Met staff, using the language he/she uses demonstrates the unreal realm you all dwell in London Met. The more you moan, the more support you lose. The more you use the kind of words 'Snowball' uses the more you drive away the public sympathy. This is 2009, thousands are losing jobs for all kinds of reasons. You need to bear this in mind. London Met has no God-given right for preservation. Institution shrink , expand and disappear. Once mighty English Electric disappeared. That is real world. I do not want to say anymore unless people there realise there are no jobs for life anymore.

Well, I'm sure your words are a great comfort and clarification to all. The financial crisis at London Met is likely to have fairly catastrophic consequences for all (with the obvious exception of the small management group) involved - staff, students, and the provision as a whole. It might surprise you to learn that some people actually believe that there is a provision worth defending, and don't just roll over and die at the first sign of trouble. But don't give it a second thought. Just go back to your personal 'real world' where people are disposable commodities and education an irritating inconvenience. Public sympathy? I doubt you know the meaning of the phrase.

Well thanks very much UCU for preventing those of us who could have got a reasonable payout by stepping forward from doing so. You talk about livelihoods being lost, careers ruined, families facing hardship, all due to the selfish actions of a minority - well how about you try eating your own dogfood for a change? Now we'll only get the statutory minimum. Hope you feel pleased with yourselves. Talk about putting the 'F' into 'UCU'.

'With friends like these': yes, I pointed out, as a committed academic who has worked all my life, the consequences of job losses in human terms (something which seems to have been totally overlooked by those throwing numbers and insults). Your response, and the underlying position you take, is astonishing (rats and sinking ships come to mind). Particularly as - according to the information available in terms of the proposed redundancies - it looked as if the statutory minimum was all most people would be offered anyway ... as I understand it, the university doesn't have the funds to cover the costs of the number of voluntary redundancies they are proposing, and one of the dangers (as I understand it) of volunteering for redundancy would be that, if you didn't get it, you would most likely be identified for the compulsory variety. In the event, and again as I understand it, UCU are arguing that the financial situation is such that the management do not necessarily have to resort to redundancy at all. So before you accuse UCU of withholding a lifebelt, check first that the one being putatively offered isn't made of lead.

I agree with "With 'friends' like these". A few of us had an informal chat with one of the UCU shop stewards at City Campus, when Roper first floated the idea of redundancies. One of us were given the impression by one of the 'great and the good mob' that if UCU could negotiate early redundancies the payouts will be better. The UCU shop steward concerned with Mugabe like friendliness brushed this aside with a soliloquy on Roper. Him being a City Campus animal had visceral hatred towards Roper. Now he gets Bob Aylett, the City Campus unfriendly guy in the scene. Suspicion is these shop stewards will negotiate a secretive deal for themselves, letting other staff clutch at straws. That is City Campus shop stewards for you.

If you are interested in what London Met UCU are saying then I suggest you check out their website: www.lmuucu.org.uk. You will indeed find strong arguments against precipitive job cuts and for the use of the substantial reserves (£30M+) currently sitting in London Met's bank accounts (from the sale of buildings), to set a deficit-budget for the next couple of years. Using that extra time to construct a real recovery plan - with maximum staff involvement, as opposed to Roper/Aylett/Lister/Links slash-and-burn non-'strategic-plan' that is much more likely to sink the university for good than rescue it. The unions are not saying no to a voluntary redundancy scheme should one become necessary. What they are saying is there is absolutely no need to initiate one before the end of the legal 90-day consultation process (the aim of which is meant to be to avoid all redundancies (voluntary or compulsory, it is still a job loss), and failing that minimise the total number of job losses. The impression management want to give is that the VR scheme wouldn’t be available at the end of the consultations. This is simply not true, and is being implied in order to try and force those worried about compulsory redundancy into jumping now (hardly voluntary!). Exactly why couldn’t management have a VR scheme available after the legal consultation period? Unless, of course the timing of the VR scheme is actually a Trojan horse, with management knowing full well they would have no legal choice but to offer one before compulsory redundancies, and therefore being used in order to get the (very few) VRs they are willing to fund out of the way before the end of formal talks. That way, from their perspective, they can start compulsorily laying staff off in mid-May (the end of the legal 90-day consultation). This is precisely why the unions will not agree to reducing the legal minimum consultations by prematurely agreeing an early VR scheme, as to do so would precipitate an early compulsory redundancy round!

The VR will go through as I hear that people are volunteering. In any case , the 500 or so redundancies expected will happen. UCU can bark and it cannot bite as events showed. No need to see their useless website anyway.

'Too late now..': no, it would never do to actually check facts, now, would it? Much better to rely on clairvoyance and hearsay.

'Too late ...', it's a bit difficult for staff to have formally volunteered for redundancy when a voluntary redundancy scheme has not yet been formally launched. I'd be interested in hearing an explanation for your chopped-logic. Also, as a word of advice, for those that may be interested in VR, I would give it some considerable thought, as I understand management have stated there will only be limited funding for a VR scheme and those refused will still be in the frame for compulsory redundancy. Not a good position to end up in, seeing as they would have in effect stated to both local and university management their expendability when applying for VR.

"it's a bit difficult for staff to have formally volunteered for redundancy when a voluntary redundancy scheme has not yet been formally launched. I'd be interested in hearing an explanation for your chopped-logic." Check out the facts , wake up. HR has been contacted by quite a few who want simply to be the first in the queue to get the payouts as there is only so much money. This number is growing. We will take the offer by being first few and get out. UCU is caught napping and does not care. Not surprsing as one UCU leaders has applied for a job in another university. Did he tell any one about this? He wants to leave the sinking ship. That university dept has a few Ex-LGU staff and they say that his chances are not good as they informed their boss about this troublesome UCU preacher.

'Too late...', you clearly have no idea how a VR scheme works. It is not a first-in-first-out system! Which is precisely why contacting HR and stating you want to be first in line is not the same as applying for a formal VR scheme. Why don't you just check out the legal imperatives around any VR re staff selection and acceptance (it has to be legally equitable) and save us all a lot of trouble? The only thing you and your colleagues are doing if indeed you have approached HR directly is highlighting your own expendability. In such a situation why would HR bother to need to coax you with, as you say, the limited VR funds available?

Checkout the facts We know how it works. You are in dark ages with the UCU. Will be signed and sealed soon. Use other fodders for the UCU preservation. We are getting out.

We agree with "Too late now thanks to UCU London Met". All UCU has done is using their members as fodders for their own ends. The UCU is like Palestinian leaders in Middle East, crying victimisation, missing chances, sticking to hard positions, procrastinating all to preserve themselves. We have approached the HR as are many many others while UCU is preparing for a grand Summer of discontent at London Met. We would be gone by then.

'We agree...', well of course you agree with 'Too late...', seeing as you are the same individual. Just how far do you think you can stretch posters credulity by making the exact same postings (with the words ever-so-slightly re-oreded) under different names?

Check out the facts Yes we are the same individuals because we think on similar lines. The spin from the UCU! The term fodders is used by so many these days. A senior management person used it the other day. That person is the same as US according to you. What clogg up!. UCU are so clever they do not see what is going on between the staff and HR! That is why every trade union action was defeated from 1930s general strike onwards! Go on!! we are just 1 person with a grudge!! Not surprised at all after the union failed to negoatiate a graceful exit from the mess. Go on checking facts that suits your line of thinking. London Met will not last that long.

'So many non...' aka 'Too late now': what a sad, embittered individual you must be. However, if you have - as you suggest - identified yourself to HR as expendable (and as hoping to cut-and-run with a bigger payoff than anyone else), it would seem an obvious consequence that your post will be cut under whatever terms the management finally come up with. Whilst I have little sympathy with you as an individual (not only do you appear incapable of joined-up thinking, but there's something pretty unpleasant in your eagerness to climb over everyone else in your haste to get to the front of the queue, no matter what the consequence of this kind of action for those who remain), and that the university will not be diminished by your departure (and the departure of those with similarly negative, unconstructive views), I am concerned, in principle, that no-one should be duped into a premature exit from the university in this way. Anyone else who is thinking of offering themselves up, in the hope of some sort of enhanced financial reward, clearly there is a risk to this. Do check out the facts.

Unhelpful comments or Damage Limitation or Check out the facts : all in self-serving inherited roles from one person!! You are bodily joined upto UCU, UNISON and the any other union barons who live in a luxury hotel at a walking distance from their union office. That is your joined up thinking! London Met sinks further no doubt. As far myself, I will along with those friends who have approached the HR will get out. We have plans outside this university. This university is infected by so many mediocre no hopers who are clinging to the decaying body of London Met and no where else to go to. We a group of 6 which is growing up to 12 ,have planned our exit for an year seeing in Spring 2008 itself the problems that London Met will be confronting. You should shut up advising others what they should do. Thank you Shakespearean scholar!!

Any colleagues who after reading the e-mail mesage you received should think hard. Waiting for a pacakage like Roper had, that is what UCU/Unhelpful postings/Check out the facts-all the same UCU individual mouthpiece for the UCU London Met cabal says. Approach HR like we did if you want to get out cutting out the middle troublesome UCU which did nothing for any one in London Met. UCU London Met is planning a final march in the streets in Summer with Corbyn, Galloway etc.. who they say have tabled a Commons motion when Brown and his minister are busy with financial problems of nations!!!! MPs wil not be interested in a University which deliberately supplied massaged data , misappropriated funds from HEFCE in trouble. Even a primary school in trouble will draw attention from Balls and MPs. No constituency interest for these MPs as London Met does not get students from Local schools and colleges as Ex-UNL says. Highbury/Islington is so expensive to buy private flats and the council flats are hard to come by in this area and hence no London Met North Staff lives in Highbury/Islington constituency of Corbyn. Galloway's Tower Hamlets as Ex-UNL says has good schools and a city academy and QMW and City U attract these students. In our opinion, we do not see London Met situation improving at all. Planning future outside London Met is the best strategy.

Well, there you have it. Listen to the uninformed rantings of 'so many non...' aka 'Too late now', or base your views on verifiable facts. Tough call.

'So many...', 'We a group of 6 which is growing up to 12'. Is that when your cells divide and you emerge as clones? If so, It would certainly explain the almost identical postings (replete with the same grammatical errors and strange usage of the English language, i.e., 'fodders')...

Check out the facts. Hey scholar, why are you still in that 3rd rate university. Should I call you MarkC? You are the same lackey who is posting under various names? You mean English English or American English or Indian English or Caribbean English. English has changed , colonial master!! When you leave Leave London Met theough VR, pushed out by Aylett, we will be there to cheer you!

Is LMU there? just checking!!! Check out the facts Thought that you took up Aylett's offer of VR. Why don't you take his offer and leave for a change? Still waiting for Roper style pacakge which will never arrive?

'So many...': is that the royal 'we', or a collection of your various identities; or are you again speaking on behalf of 'The World'?

'Testing... testing': yes - tricky thing, reality. You don't appear to have a particularly good grasp of it. Keep testing.

Unhelpful postings = Ex-LGU/Lister/MarkC/£3500 top up ++ should make sense!

Total gobbledegook, I'm afraid. Hardly surprising, given the source.

Testing.. testing.. and So many non UCU at London Met . Best to ignore this MarkC who blogs under Unhelpful postings/check out the facts. A union junkie , getting a top up of £3500 compared to his North Campus counterparts for doing less work than his colleagues there. No shame there since being a lowly qualified Ex-LGU can't get out. Does not want to share the large office with 10 desks in Tower block North, but has a cosy office in TH. Ignore these morons.

'Ex-UNL: see above. More venomous spam. For all your posturing, you're way off track on all counts. But bearing in mind that you don't actually work at the university, and have no real knowledge of what is going on, I don't suppose that will bother you in the least. Its hard to comprehend just why you feel the need to interfere in something about which you know so little. You are clearly deeply resentful of the fact that the university has continued without you. The one small consolation, I suppose, is that we don't actually have to try to work with you.

Unhelpful postings. Mark C assumes that I do not work at London Met. How did he arrive at that conclusion? Using the middleware logic?

'So many...', aka 'Ex-UNL', you can call me what you like. However, it won't change the fact that I'm not who you think I am. The English language that I refer to is the one that has proper sentence construction and an agreed vocabulary. Rather like all languages other than the one you seem to be using. However, I am much more intrigued as to why you are still at London Met (and desperately waiting for a VR package) when you state above that you have wanted to get out since at least Spring 2008. Could it have something to do with your complete lack of ability to prove your worth to any potential employer? If so, I suggest you direct them to your numerous postings on this site. They will then surely see you for the man you really are. Then again, that probably wouldn't help you would it?

So many.. is in London Met.Hey Colonial Master, are you sure ex-UNL is in London Met at all. agreed vocabulary! Have you worked any where else other than London Met? You seem to have very little capacity to read and comprehend except being a KKK supremacist. Read the posting under Ex-UNL name. No one said I am waiting for VR package. My friends will get it. That is a bad news for you lackeys. Because, you wouldn't get that either. If you are that able why are you still in London Met ?

'Ex-UNL', maybe 'Unhelpful postings' arrived at the (unfortunately wrong) conclusion that you don't work at London Met because of this (totally contradictory) posting that you recently made on the other concurrent THE London Met blog story: 'Unhelpful postings still can't get it as I am saying that I am ex-UNL. If this how you understand your subject area and lecture, I am sure it is how, and along with so many lackeys who call them as academic staff there, no wonder London Met is hiding from the Times Good university Guide. My friends have contacted the HR and they plan professional lives outside that University. That is constructive approach and not self-serving approach that you have fearing that any VR would mean that it will touch you as well. Embittered, not at all , I am Ex-UNL!'

Ex-UNL':can I refresh your rather short memory? You announced on another LMet blog that you did not work at London Met (and followed your announcement with a string of abuse towards the poster who had assumed that you did). Now you don't seem to be sure. If you DO work at London Met and have - as you seemed to suggest - approached HR to try to be first in the queue for VR, in the hope of getting more money than your colleagues before you cut-and-run, then its highly likely that your post will be identified as expendable, and you will shortly be ex-London Met. If you DON'T work at London Met, you have no business masquerading as someone who does. Either way, your postings are clearly those of an embittered individual with an axe to grind, and are wholly unhelpful to any constructive discussion on the current issues.

So what Ted Hughes, the Poet Laureate! Do you realise that your monthly cheque is paid for by those who cannot write English properly? Do you have a PhD? or being a white supremacist you do not need one! Colonial master. White don't you go to Oxbridge or Russell group Univ if you are that good. Why muck about blaming the senior management in London Met? Did it ever occur to you that people do not use essay type of construction in a blog. But we can't question a KKK can we?

Unhelpful postings. Could I remind you this is a blog maintained by THES and not by KKK. Hence if you do not like the postings, you can complain, the editor may delete with warnings or the best option is to find yourself scarce.You want job for life. It is not going to happen in London Met. As far me working /not working in London Met, I simply said I an an Ex-UNL, which I am. I am happy and no bitterness whatever. As fr my friends, they take the VR and trigger a VR tsunami. Watch out the axe!!

'Ex-UNL', I am still at London Met because I actually belief it can be rescued from its current predicament. I also belief that most of the staff (other than some noticeable exceptions, including you and your 'friends'), both academic and non-academic, are hard working and dedicated to delivering a high quality education to the students (many, but by no means all, who are 'second-chance' students) that come through our doors. However, I also believe that we have been thwarted in delivering on that possibility by the 'pile-em-in-teach-em-cheap' mentality of the current management clique (you so admire). I agree that the total number of published students is artificially high, and this is deliberately so because of management's previous insistence on not removing non-attending students, etc, etc...(Again, an inconvenient fact, something the unions have consistently complained against. Indeed, it was union intervention on the then Academic Board, that ensured we now take class registers and follow-up non attendees!). Also, you talk of 3-day weeks, etc... Well, if you actually did check the facts every now and again, you would see that academics in the vast majority of, and most likely all, departments/faculties at London Met have the highest number of 'formal scheduled teaching' and contact hours out of all the post-92 institutions, and vastly more than any pre-92. So, there is clearly teaching that still needs to be done. Interestingly, the only way that management believe they can 'lose' so many staff (550+) through redundancy is by increasing the workloads (beyond national contractual limits) of those that will be left. This doesn't imply the work isn't there now does it?

Check out the facts: "..because I actually belief.. I also belief that most of the staff .." That is Queen's English usage! We dark colonials the infidels use this construction... and hence we not qualified but were appointed on affirmative action!!! You do need to state the story. It is simple. The London Met staff from Lecturer onwards generously applied the progression rules , gave resits, .. Withdrawal of students not done.. It is not Roper who sat in his office and added a figure of 100 to each progession numbers. It came from bottom up, UG Centres, particularly the ALs there elasticated further the progression results, Registry ALs interpreted generously.. Roper signed it but the whole thing is a con engineered at every level. Hence VR should apply, jobs should go after London Met misappropriated funds from HEFCE. If a benefit receiving family did this, they will be punished. It is a criminal offence. If 550+ jobs had to go, so bet it. Scholars like you who can read and interpret Chaucer have no problems in getting another job, isn't it!!

'Ex-UNL', I feel obliged to point out the obvious racist overtones of your recent postings. Why on earth do you assume that someone commenting on an academic blog about the lack of basic English languages skills and the inability to construct a reasoned and fact-based argument will necessarily be white? If you will pardon the pun, this seems like an attempt to ‘whitewash’ the paucity of your original argument.

Check out the facts: I cannot BELIEF it!! Our resident poet laureate writes.. ""..because I actually belief.. I also belief that most of the staff .." . No Ex-UNL, he did deliberately wrote it for us as an exercise in English grammar. I cannot BELIEF that he would commit such silly error in English usage!! It is for you and me, EX-UNL.. We both say it is incorrect! Could it be? The man who ridiculed us as some lowly less qualified bodies, yes, recruited through affirmative action , cannot get the Egg firmly lodged on his face? Can he?!!

Check out the facts: "Why on earth do you assume that someone commenting on an academic blog about the lack of basic English languages skills" See your Engllish usage in the last posting of yours: ""..because I actually belief.. I also belief that most of the staff .." That is not me, it is you. You are simply a bigotted person. You are indeed whitewashing your mistakes!! Pot calling the Kettle black mate!!

Testing.. testing..Check out the facts has to swallow hard his pride, I cannot BELIEF it. Yes, I typed two 'll's in my last posting. It is a typo as if once types fast,and submits without proof reading one certainly errs . But usage of 'BELIEF' in the place of 'BELIEVE' not a typo. People say'eat your words', that comes to mind!

'Testing.. testing', why would you possibly mention 'affirmative action'? At no point have I either stated or implied that your general (as opposed to the odd word mistakenly typed, albeit, twice :-) ) poor written English and weakness of consistent argument is anything whatsoever to do with whether you are white or not, or whether you are English or not. No, it is just shoddy English and argument style. I doubt the English would matter at all if it were not the medium in use at the university in question as well as the blog you are commentating on.

Check out the facts "Ex-UNL', I am still at London Met because I actually belief it can be rescued from its current predicament. I also belief that most of the staff. Read the usage of 'belief'. A full apology won't go amiss!!

The saying is,if you are in a deep hole stop digging. Lookat your usage of 'belief' it is not a typo. Typing Engllish for English is as 'l' is pressed hard. You owe an apology for acting superior. You are as misguided and as prejudiced as any many I have come across in London Met. Obviously you can't get any job outside of London Met. As for me, I will get out as I talked to HR. Wonder who will employ me! I do not have chip on my shoulders. " It is the consummation devoutly to be wished"

Testing.. testing..Leave Check out for Facts. Sure he is misguided and cannot swallow his pride.. Writing 'belief' in the place of 'believe' is not a typo. As Scots say he is 'fearty' of his job in London Met. The more one stays in London Met the more one blots one's CV. As for us, we tested the blokes enough!!!!

'Testing testing' aka 'ex-UNL': your postings are almost totally incoherent. What hypocrisy that you should criticize other postings for the odd typo! More worrying, though, is the view you appear to have expressed, that there is some correlation between academic literacy and race. In ANY university, academic literacy is a standard expectation (particularly amongst the staff)! If you work in a university, you should know that.

Unhelpful postings . You are another 'fearty' of losing your job. We explained what an odd typo means. sure you aka Check out the facts. You work in a 3rd rate university and should we remind you about that again and again... I do not think you have any grasp of anything, the way you interpreted what I said. People like you will end up receiving statutory redundancy, for which I have no sympathy at all. Check out for facts/Unhelpful postings are the most underqualified self-serving individuals. I will leave at that. ..

'Ex-UNL', exactly what are you accusing me of being 'bigoted' against?

Listen to the incoherent venomous rantings of one or two embittered individuals, such as 'Ex-UNL' aka 'Testing testing' , or form a view based on facts? Tough call.

Check out the facts. We posted this in another thread: Unhelpful postings: We are not in a 3rd rate university like yourself. So no need for your advice. Try not posting the same copy in all threads. We tested you enough. Students who came to us complained about prejudiced staff at London Met. We promised them to test them to the limit. This we did. We are satified that they were right.... After this experience, London Met deserves closure. Journalists last year tried testing the London Met 'clearing' lines assuming themselves as students. It would have been hilarious, if not serious. The AL in charge of a course dropped the entry reuirements so low to us the 'students' that it was unbelievable. Our experience here throws question on the quality of London Met staff.

Should be 'quetion mark'. See you during clearing time which runs for weeks starting from July to Mid October in London Met. You would meet us one way or the other, for our our dossier compilation about the recruiting practices in London Met. That should be very interesting!!!

'Testing.. testing' you quote Hamlet’s ‘To Be or Not To Be’, but you yourself don’t appear to have done any soul searching in deciding to run after obtaining your converted pieces of silver. In my case I'll stick with Shelly for an analogy between those of us fighting to defend education at London Met and the set of mis-managers and malcontents trying to sink it: 'Rise like Lions after slumber. In unvanquishable number - Shake your chains to earth like dew. Which in sleep had fallen on you - Ye are many - they are few.'

Check out the facts. Enough After your quote. We will give you the job in our university once it is advertised!! But only after another 'experience' during clearing weeks -the eternal student grabbing exercise that London Met goes through every year. London Met should come clear. A College which bears the name of islington not far from Tower block in Holloway Road has a principal who was once a governor of London Met. He does not encourage his students ( not the brightest as it is not Winchester College) to apply to London Met. Defending education- is a far fetched phrase. No need for platitudes either.

Form a view based on venomous rantings, or on reasoned fact? Hmm. Tough call.

The attitude of London Met academic staff to this crisis is quite shameful. In particular, their rubbishing of any one who posts against their views. I knew that something was wrong in this university after I saw a few students of my class coming to the exams this January who I did not see attending any lecture class for 3 months. Our class of 30 students, so I was told by lecturers, has only 12 students who attend lectures. My sniors i 2nd year say that these 18 absentees will be progressed to the 2nd year on resits which they say will be an eyewash. The lecturers seem not to mind as they appear to be familiar with this situation. They come least prepared to the class and tutorials. My courseleader is never in her office, and our e-mails are answered 3 days later. She is late for the appointment fixed. The school admin staff says that she has to travel from Coventry where she lives. I have approached the LSBU for a transfer to the 2nd year. For me, a home student, this univesity is not working. Not surprising that this university is the news recently.

It might also be helpful to return, momentarily (as a reminder of the central issues), to the EDM, tabled by Jeremy Corbyn (26 Jan 2009) and signed by 35 MPs, which reads as follows: 'That this House notes with concern that London Metropolitan University is facing a reduction of £18 million in its teaching budget and a claw-back of £38 million in past funding as a result of inaccurate returns on student completion rates; further notes with deep concern that university managers have responded to this crisis by stating that they are seeking to cut at least 330 jobs and by failing to consult meaningfully with staff or unions about the crisis or the future of the university; considers that this scale of cuts throws the future viability of the university into doubt at a time when education and training are vital to the capital's economic health, as well as further undermining efforts to widen participation in London's higher education institutions; calls on the Government, through the Higher Education Funding Council for England, to fund London Metropolitan adequately; and urges the university management to emulate the conduct of other London higher education institutions facing funding cuts by reversing the current policy of cutting staffing and committing themselves to a thorough exploration of all potential non-staff savings through meaningful consultation with staff and campus unions'.

Unhelpful postings . I am in London Met. Aren' you overdoing this/ By this overkill, every one in London and further afield reads the news and knows what kind of university London Met is. Corbyn tabled this in Jan and no one is interested! I am intendinmg to take the VR and do further studies. Fedup with your postings and some others . People are not fools. They make up their own minds. Go on play your tunes and draw more attention to the bad news in the press about London Met.

I'm sorry if you find the provision of verifiable factual material 'overkill'. You do of course have a right to an opinion. Some opinions are informed, some are not. As you rightly say, people will make up their own minds.

Unhelpful postings and Check out the facts. I think I know both. The latter is a bad lecturer but that does not stop this person commenting on students- you see he is here in London Met to preserve education!( euphemism for 'I need this job, will not work for it in the class, but have the right of the job"). As to the former, does he teach, do admin work or wasting London Met's IT resources? How we wish these two worked hard to earn the respect of students. In case these two jump on me, I am at the digs thanks to the two lecturers who did not show up. No cover for them either. No messages to the effect. This is London Met for you!!

'Another student...', clearly you have also failed to check the facts. I can categorically assure you that I am not, well at least according to the consistently highly positive comments recorded on module feedback forms from verifiable students and at course committes, a 'bad lecturer'. Perhaps you are confusing me with 'Testing..testing'?

Do you staff want to show some "staff power"??? ALL STAFF SHOULD WALK OUT ON A 2 WEEK STRIKE especially during clearing.

SHUT DOWN THE IT SYSTEMS DURING CLEARING. do not answer the phones during clearing

Check out the facts. I read Testing .. testing.. postings. Testing... testing.. says he/she does not work in London Met according to last postings. We know the person called Check out the facts-the same arrogance, the same person who cooked up module feedbacks eventhough this person never handed out any of these sheets, always patronising but never good at lectures. Students are so fed up they take turns to attend this persons' lectures. During last week this person was missing many lectures. Why not do the work this staff is paid for. Perhaps busy in defending the education which is more important? So this person's crusade is to preserve education in London Met which is preserve own job. Yes, GO ON STRIKE during clearing, This bad university will close. That is defending the jobs!

If the Aylett the Skinhead gets his way there will be 25% less staff around by the time Clearing begins in August, and going on past form it'd bet my boots the criteria for redundancy selection will be manipulated in such a way as to ensure that 25% takes out as many known trade union members as possible. If you want to really make an impact you should strike over the end of semester exams - no invigilation, no marking, no resits, and consequently no progression = no HEFCE funding. The treat of that alone should bring the fascist back to the negotiating table.

No Thugs In Our House. Very well said. This institution, London Metropolitan University is only University in its name. London Met is like the camp in Calais from where illegal immigrants try their luck to come to this country. The only difference is London Met is bang in the middle of London. It is such a shame to keep this so called institution running after it deliberately misappropriated funds from HEFCE as reported in the press. Its student recruiting practices and its scrounging of tax payer's money are laid bare by the postings we read in this blog as well as chats with those who were fed up with the poor standards of students and colleague and left the university. It appears this university alone is responsible for thousands of overseas students who left studies within months of arriving and who with expired visas are hiding and make up the a substantial percentage of illegal immigrants in this country. Your approach will show the fallacy of defence of this so called University and will hasten its closure. It is a blot on the HE education lanscape of London.

I agree strike at exams-no invigilation, no marking, no exam board attendance and no resits is the answer to defend our jobd at London Met. That was what UCU rep at TH in Campbellian strategy room said to us yesterday. We agree with him and GO ON STRIKE.

I think you'll find, according to the postings anyway, that 'Testing testing' does (unfortunately) still work at the university. As to the identity of any of the posters, you really have absolutely no idea at all (though a lack of factual information doesn't seem to have deterred you). No doubt you will respond to this posting with a a string of abuse, as you seem to be incapable of anything else; but you'd do well to try to contain your bile, as, at the moment, you are coming across as no more than a nasty, arrogant, ignorant bully. Look to your own conduct before you start criticising that of the people around you. Glasshouses and stones come to mind.

To 'Another Student' - That is Campbellian Logic very flawed indeed!!

We know this 'Campbellian logic'. Bring it on. The STRIKE will kill off this university.

'They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no-one was left to speak up'. (Pastor Martin Niemoeller, 1955)

To 'Another Student' ; If Testing.. testing.. were to be still working in London Met.. why would he/she wish closure of this university making himself/herself redundant? It makes no sense at all to spread bile about his/her own university. Is this what 'Another Student' called Campbellian Logic and flawed. Could be the trick of the UCU London Met to hide its own militancy by blaming some one else. Arthur Scargill did that in the last miners' strike. Look where it lead the miners. I work in London Met and most of us are fed up with the UCU stance on this crisis and a vast number of us have no interest in union politics and want to get on with the work of teaching. If some of us lose jobs in the process of restructuring that is fact of life. The need of the hour is the non-UCU staff have a say in the matter and we are attempting to form a force to counter the UCU politics. Restructuring has happened everywhere except in HE sector. London Met is ready for one it appears. So sooner it happens, the beter for the university and students. London Met will emerge stronger. There are examples of this in Scotland.

'If Testing...testing... were to be still working in London Met...why would he/she wish closure of this university making himself/herself redundant? It makes no sense at all to spead bile about his/her own university'. Couldn't agree more. But according to his/her own postings, s/he does still work at the university. There's a lot about many of the postings on this blog that make little real sense. There's also quite a bit of uninformed (and fairly venomous) opinion flying around; but real facts are thin on the ground. This isn't an appropriate outlet for personal frustration - its an academic blog, not a therapist's couch.

To 'It makes no sense'. Yes it is an academic blog, for academics like youself to plead for your job continuance all your life!! You would accept nothing less!!!

To 'It makes no sense': This is what you colleague "To 'Another Student' posted: "I think you'll find, according to the postings anyway, that 'Testing testing' does (unfortunately) still work at the university. As to the identity of any of the posters, you really have absolutely no idea at all (though a lack of factual information doesn't seem to have deterred you). No doubt you will respond to this posting with a a string of abuse, as you seem to be incapable of anything else; but you'd do well to try to contain your bile, as, at the moment, you are coming across as no more than a nasty, arrogant, ignorant bully. Look to your own conduct before you start criticising that of the people around you. Glasshouses and stones come to mind." This is an academic blog according to you and what pearls of wisdom your esteemed colleague above is dishing out. Anyway, Testing... testing..appears to have rarttled cages in London Met. He/she works in London Met to your colleague and he /she does not workat London Met to you!! Wonderful wisdom by two scholars at play here!! Do you have a message for your colleague who is also pleading for job for life?

Well, wouldn't do to look at the facts, now, would it? Might spoil your fun. Clearly, any kind of discussion which involves challenging any of your small-minded bigoted views is a waste of time. You clearly have an axe to grind; and I'm afraid I'm really not interested.

To 'It makes no sense'. Look at what your colleague ( It is Check out the facts) says in this academic blog. An union buddy of yours? Fearful of losing your job? Sorry, London Met is folding up.

Fantastic to hear the news that London Met management have entered negotiations with UEL with view to a merger.

My daughter is thinking of applying for fashion marketing at LMU i- is this a bad idea? It's a pity if it is - there is a shortage of courses in this subject.

As an academic who taught in London Met for over 6 years and now out of it after trying my best to improve colleagues' attitude and their teaching methods, I would say there are other better universities like Westminster, Southbank, Middlesex.. which are miles better than London Met. Mine and several London Met's colleagues' sons and duaghters do not go to London Met. You will find very very few London Met's staff's daughters/sons in London Met. My honest advice to you as a father and as an academic who worked in London Met and now moved to another job ( not in any of the above universities I mentioned) is IT IS A BAD IDEA. University education is expensive and your daughter deservers a better institution than London Met. This university is full of students from overseas who could not get into universities in their own countries because of their very poor education background. Young people need communication with class mates, work in groups with them and this is almost impossible in London Met as half the students do not speak English when they care to attend the lectures and mostly disruptive like the pupils in comprehensive inner London Schools. Surely There are other institutions which offer this course. I know I will be pilloried for telling this truth from London Met staff who want their jobs to continue despite poor subject delivery. If they launch on rebuttals, they should first state where their sons/and daughtes study/studied. If they do not have one, they are not fit to give advice.

To 'To synthiem': are you really suggesting that the ability to form a reasoned view is based on the ability to procreate? Are you saying that your status as a parent gives you an exclusive right to critical thought? I guess there might be some validity to this if you were evaluating nappies or Kalpol. But academic provision? What an extraordinary view. I don't imagine the staff at London Met would be alone in finding it a little odd.

... and are you honestly surprised, in these circumstances, that your colleagues might have been somewhat resistant to your attempts to 'educate' them?

Amid all this waffle an important question remains: how many London Met staff with children would be happy for them to be educated there? The way "No children=no critical ability?" has skirted around the issue is revealing in itself.

To 'impartial observer': I was merely pointing out the rather bizarre views held by someone holding themself up as a shining example of academic excellence (who tells us that he spent six years 'trying [his] best to improve colleagues attitudes and their teaching methods'), professing to offer a rational argument against the university (based on his privileged status as a parent), and welcoming martyrhood ('I know I will be pilloried...') for telling the 'truth' (as he sees it). Or maybe an educated view is just too much to ask?

Impartial observer: Again No children=no critical ability does not want to answer your and my question. This is the argument I had with these staff weaklings who did not care for what they are doing to an already 5th rate university. I say it again to 'synthiem'. Your daughter deservers better than London Met. Children have one good chance to be educated in an university where quality of education is considered paramount. London Met is not found in the Time good university guide of universities educating full time students. The reason is obvious. Prospective parents: keep away from this dump. To No children=no critical ability : You show typical ignorance of London Met staff. Calpol is a mere paracetamol compound. Not a detergent. Answer my and Impartial observer's question again, instead of self-serving platitudes.

Dear Syntiem, this is a very wrong place to ask for advise... you will either get the response of someone who really does not like the particular University or the opposite someone who wishes to stand up for the university.... As a parent I must first ask my child what they trully wish to do with their life and force myself to respect their opinion (even though it is very hard to accept most of the times) then all I can do is help them in their research with valid information and the opinions of those that matter! The opinions of the people here including mine do not matter! (I know I just created a paradox...but its true)... the course leader opinion does not matter but the way she or he replies to your email does matter as it will show you the kind of reply your kid may get when she needs help! Student satisfaction surveys matter the most in my opinion and for sure visiting the place and trying to talk to someone that has taken the course before would really help! did they enjoy it? did they learn anything? did they manage to get a job easily aferwards? This is the kind of research I would do for my kids... before I hand over a penny to any University.... btw....how can someone who worked for a place be impartial to that place??? Impartial observer obviously has enough baggage to carry with him to afterlife... no children = no critical ability is obviously someone with no children that does however have a very valid point... if anyone was impartial is him/her.... Good luck Syntiem I hope your daugter finds a place she is trully happy and she does well with her course!

Systeim: Please keep away from this 5th rate university. London Met shows a large number of students-more than 30,000 but most of them are on the paper. Very few of them are active students. London Met is like an inner city very bad comprehensive secondary school with all its problems. No use in talking to students who cannot communicate properly and who are so weak in their subjects and so poorly qualified that the universities in their own countries did not offer them places. The trade union reigns supreme in London Met and they are known to go on strike during exams, refusing to mark students answer scripts and put spanner in the works of students graduation. It happened in 2003 and it will happen again. That is why we want this university to close to prevent any more harm to education of young people from our country.

'To synthiem': where exactly did I suggest that Calpol was anything other than a paracetamol compound? Try actually looking at the evidence before criticising it. Yes, yes, ....'staff weaklings'...'5th rate university'...'dump'...'typical ignorance'...'self-serving'... Change the record.

Here it is: No children=no critical ability?: "I guess there might be some validity to this if you were evaluating nappies or Kalpol"

Here it is: No children=no critical ability?: "I guess there might be some validity to this if you were evaluating nappies or Kalpol"

'To synthiem': And your point is...? Where, exactly, do nappies or Calpol suggest detergent? Sadly, you appear to have applied the same poor grasp of the principles of logic to your arguments about the university, and to parenthood/critical ability. You must have been a real joy to work with.

No children=no critical ability? Too much to expect by way of grasping an analogy from some one who was involved in masagging student data and the con on HEFCE. I do not need to say anything about London Met. The HEFCE has said it all. We will leave it Aylett and the interim VC to reduce the numbers of these con artists.

There is a rumour that the lecturers in this university are planning a strike from 2nd week of May when the exams begin. One lecturer said, if the strike goes ahead there will not be any marking of students answer scripts and invigilations will be boycotted. There goes my ambition of completing the degree this year and getting out of this bad university fast. I would not recommend this university to even my bitterest enemy. This university has by far the worst bunch of lecturers who only look after themselves. Recently we lost the only good lecturer in our department who moved to another university. Please do not come to London Met. It is not worth the risk.

To sunthiem: Waste of time in replying to the deluded comments of any London Met staff. Staff like "No children=no critical ability?" is rattled as more and more staff express interest in taking the VR. There will be less of them by this Summer, any way. London Met is shrinking fast. A London Met student: I heard similar rumour. These London Met staff are notorious in hitting students where it hurts-refusing to mark answer scripts, in their dispute with the management. They did it in May -June 2003, a few of us then defied their threats and marked the answer scripts to enable the 3rd year students to graduate. Exam boards were cancelled. The graduation was delayed even then. I do not know why the HEFCE should put up with this university's worst practices. There are plenty of other new universities to take the students if this university is closed. I also advise prospective students and their parents to keep well away from this institution.

'to synthiem': why bother with logic when you can resort to insults. Boring boring boring.

No children+no critical ability? There is logic in what Bob Aylett is offering.-VR for the data massagers.

'To synthiem': and what, exactly, has this got to do with your rather silly observations about Calpol and detergent? Or your even sillier assertions regarding the privileged status of parenthood in regard to critical thought? Yes, yes... we've heard it all before... .'staff weaklings'...'5th rate university'...'dump'...'typical ignorance'...'self-serving'...'data massage'... You're clearly just waiting for any opportunity to repeat the same tired cliches. Yes, we know what you think. And its pretty tedious. The university has survived without you. Get used to it.

Ex-UNL and To synthiem. Thank you very much sirs. I do understand the attitude of staff like "No children=no critical ability?" who consider their survival first and shed crocodile tears for the students. London Met is full of staff like this person, you no doubt will know. Their problem is that they can't leave the uni as no uni will want them and they want the good life they have had these years at London Met which is threatened by this crisis. My brother lost his job recently, working in a bank and he does not moan like these London Met staff. The more they way they behave which their postings illustrate, the more they repel students from even considering applying to London Met. The students should note their behaviour and not come to this uni.

To synthiem : Ignore "No children=no critical ability?". This person belongs to UCU London Met's rebuttal brigade. This person is gripped by the VR fever which is spreading fast in London Met . Best to ignore these people. What was your experience in LondonMet, particularly in regards to the progression and resit rules? In my experience, the progression rules were applied at the progression boards consisting of heads of depts or their senior staff delegate, the ALs, course leaders and a few lecturers. The heads and the ALs were very particular in keeping the student numbers and letting them to progress with 2 module /3 module fails even if these students were never engaged with these modules. Attendance in lectures/exams was never considered for resits criteria. The UG centre leaders, the ALs, further diluted the criteria ( they should not do but they did) and allowed students to go up the levels. Numbers in each levels ( on paper ocourse) was the aim . All the lecturers without exception agreed to this line of thinking and not even questioned except me perhaps in the whole of London Met. The Heads and the ALs got their 4 -5 figure bonuses ( £6000-£10,000). The heads, the ALs, the lecturers, they are all the perpetrators of this data scam. A student in London: You could help other prospective students by telling the truth them about London Met. Ask them to read this blog and the Facebook entries you have all so nicely contributing about London Met. London Met is finished.

To Ex-UNL. My experience in London Met was similar to yours. Our dept did not know how many active students we had, and yet our head was happy quoting the paper-based figure although lectures in every module were attended by only 30-35% students . This was the percentage across all courses in the dept. My guess is our dept had only about 35% of the number of students on paper the head was happily quoting to every one. One time in the dept staff meeting, heads turned and hostile eyes pierced me when I asked about the dodgy progression and resits rules we all seemde to applying. The head asked whether any one else was concerned. No takers. I was told not to question the rules as all my colleagues seemed to be happy. After the meeting my colleagues all chided me for raising this which they said was operating to our benefit. Now suddenly it is Roper's and senior management's fault!!! In the UG centre when I was acting as a PAA, I refused to register failed and non-progressed students to higher level modules. After 2-3 weeks, I was relieved of my PAA duties and no explanation was given!! When the real numbers of students are known, 550 redundancies will look like a very modest figure. London Met is the worst university in England and not surprising that it cannot find its place in the Times Good University Guide. I also say keep away from this university.

Come and join us! We're many in name (though admittedly few in actual number). You don't need any qualifications (and in fact qualifications are positively discouraged). Just the ability to talk about something ... well, anything, in fact, as long as you don't know anything about it. This is a real haven, far away from the hurly burly of logic or rational thought. But don't just believe me... check out our esteemed alumni (which include such beacons of wisdom as 'To synthiem', and 'Ex-UNL' ). Tell us about your unsuccessful quests to educate your philistine colleagues! Tell us about the 'hostile eyes' which 'pierced' you when you valiantly tried to tell your colleagues how to do their jobs! Tell us about how you were such shining beacons of integrity amongst these heathens! We are all breathless with anticipation at the prospect of such stories. And later, we can all dance around a fire together, and burn effigies. Such fun.

" We're many in name (though admittedly few in actual number) " - This quantifies the problem of false reporting of student data. "You don't need any qualifications"- Again quantifies London Met student recruitment practice during clearing weeks! Well done for this succint definitions!!

"we can all dance around a fire together, and burn effigies. Such fun. " The voice of London Met UCU1 Burning Roper's and Aylett's effigies when the VR hits. Dancing and waving strike placards in May in streets when students are writing exams indoors!! Such fun!!

'Sounds like London Met' aka 'Sounds like London Met UCU': welcome! Your lack of logic coupled with your vitriol and your tedious repetition amply qualifiy you for entry to our elite club. We look forward to having you join us. Or are you already here? ... oh, yes, you've already signed up under 'To synthiem' /'Ex-UNL'...

No children=no critical ability?/The We Hate London Met Misfits and Dropouts Club: A simple question: Are the London Met staff planning strike in May during exams?

'A student in London Met': I'm afraid I can't answer that question - because I simply don't know. As I understand the situation, action as serious as a strike would require a ballot of the UCU/Unison membership. Strike action really is a last resort - its disruptive for students, its disruptive for staff and course delivery, and also, strike days are unpaid days. If there IS industrial action in May, it will be because the majority of the staff feel very strongly indeed about the issues involved. I know students must be feeling very apprehensive about this possibility; but believe me, it really is a last resort, when all other routes of resolution have failed, and it isn't something any of us take on lightly. I'm sorry I can't give you a more definitive answer; but keep an eye on the 'Save London Met' blog site, as its fairly up-to-date.

A student in London Met: ' Save the London Met' blog is the product of the notorious militant staff union and like-minded staff in London who equate the saving of their jobs to saving the university! It is that self-serving! Don't be duped by the 'last resort' phraseology which means that their demand- keeping them for life must be met. No one, not even the TUC can promise this to its institutional staff. My betting is on strike as these vermins wreck students' future. That is their culture and no one can sink lower than that.

Fantastic posting, 'Ex-UNL': you're really doing us proud! You tell them! Those 'like-minded' staff at London Met are such a thorn in our flesh. There's a lot of them, too; and they're irritatingly logical and reasonable. Not a problem though - what we lack in numbers and intellect, we can more than make up for in insults. Keep going - we might be able to bore them to death.

CLOSE LONDON MET.

Not bad, 'Another Outsider': succinct and to the point, not wasting any time with logical argument, your posting has a certain streamlined quality about it. It could posibly have been improved with the inclusion of a few mindless insults; but I'm sure you'll improve with practice.

Malanie Newman, writes in THES: "Voluntary redundancies and recruitment freezes are the order of the day. Melanie Newman reports The wave of course closures and job cuts that has rocked the sector recently swept through more institutions this week. Cuts have been announced at the University of Warwick, the University of Strathclyde and the University of Sussex, and the University of Reading has confirmed that one of its schools will shut" Before accusing any one, the London Met staff has to read the above report which appears in THES. Good universities like the above are shedding staff and closing schools. What is big deal about this former poly which is making such good news these days? London Met's practices were tolerated too long and it appears that it is full of staff like the poster who replied. They lost the sympathy of the public and hence the closure is the only option after London Met was caught in its game of deception. The RBS to day has announced 9000 job cuts. This may be due to credit crunch. But these are also humans with mortgages. What is so specail about London Met losing 500 jobs? The staff has to move on.

Hmmm... we were in two minds about this one. A bit too logical, we think, to qualify for our club. You make a couple of points, about the problems across the sector, and the general state of HE, which are rather too factual in nature, rather too serious, and don't really fit with our mission. The bit about the loss of public sympathy making closure the only option does (with its rather strange lack of logic) have some potential, as does the reasoning that it should close because other departments and institutions are closing; but the bit about humans with mortgages is (even though you don't apply it to London Met) just too compassionate to be of any value here.

And the best thing about this club? No UCU regurgitating mindless clichés that no-one outside of the SWP would feel comfortable with.

... quite. The above posting was written by another member, using the same heading; but of course neither of the unions would be welcomed here - their information would be far too reasoned. Don't you just hate it when ballots, consultation, negotiation and factual information get in the way? They clutter things so much, don't they? Spontaneity is so much more fun - the less informed, the more insulting the better.

Considering the poor quality of lecturers in London Met, their selffish attitude of looking after themselves and pretending they care for students while preparing to chuck spanner in the works by planning strike in May has made me to agree with those who want this university to close. Students I agree will not be affected as they will find places in other better unis in London.

Considering the poor quality of lecturers in London Met, their selffish attitude of looking after themselves and pretending they care for students while preparing to chuck spanner in the works by planning strike in May has made me to agree with those who want this university to close. Students I agree will not be affected as they will find places in other better unis in London.

Is London Met still there? The VR is cooking!

To A student in London Met . I agree with you about London Met staff. I share your apprehension. If London Met management has courage, even with a balloted strike announcement, they should seek a judicial review citing students' graduation. We will be suggesting a few solutions to senior management in the event of a strike so that your exam answer scriots could be marked enabling students to graduate. London Met has no long time future.

To A student in London Met. London Met's staff who belong t the UCU are militants whose last concern is students exams. Just like a few years ago, they do not hesitate going on strike during exam period. I crossed the picket line then when I realised that they were hurting the students. There are ways of making sure that the students scripts are marked. The strike this time will hasten the demise of this university. I am glad that I am out of this but am concerned about the students at the hands of these irresponsible staff.

Terrific example, 'Ex-UNL'/ 'Testing...testing' (haven't seen you for a while), though I'm not sure about the judicial review - that might actually reveal a few real facts, and that would be terribly counterproductive to our project. Yes, do speak to senior management - I'm sure they'll be so grateful for any pearls of knowledge you can offer. We know the problems you had with your colleagues - philistines who wouldn't listen as you tried to improve them. Who knows, perhaps the senior management will be more receptive to your words of wisdom.

Understand that there has been an overwhelming response to Ayeltt's e-mail message about volunteers for VR from both campuses. A few in the know how is saying that thinking now is to move selected depts to North Campus from the City and to wind up the City end. The Campbellian mob, the hardcore UCU militants it appears are threatening strike if this happens. The UCU and staff attitudes it appears have not found favour with the senior management, and shaving off the City campus they argue will reduce the UCU militancy as Campbellian crowd resides there. Good news all around. At last London Met is on the way to become a single campus university in the first stage before disappearing.

Oh yes! A bit of groundless rumour goes a l-o-n-g way! AND you've managed to slip in a few mindless insults, too. Well done, 'Testing...testing'! The only slightly dubious statement is the one about the UCU and staff attitudes - if the management are aware at all of staff attitudes (and this is not at all certain), then your comment on their distaste is really probably a bit too close to the truth to be out-and-out gossip (and this club really doesn't tolerate too much of the truth). But the rest is just fine, if a little uncharacteristic in its restraint.

Testing.. testing.. ignore the not surprising comment from" The We Hate London Met Misfits and Dropouts Club", the name and attitude suggestive of London Met UCU rebuttal club member. They are going to have their come uppance once the clawback starts to bite.

'Ex-UNL' aka 'Testing...testing': we are very proud to count you as part of our small but elite membership. The entry was a little on the dull side, though - a few more mindless insults wouldn't have gone amiss.

MANY THANKS FOR UP PEOPLE ,YOU REMIND BB WHO HAS TO STOP SO HUMANU.

BB was so happy that because BB grasped two big mouse yesterday midnight.BB have known her room is not safe,because the organisation want to know BB's outside relationship.If BB calls somebody and then they enjoy the conversation.BB catched them and gave up them 3 hours later,because BB know .......................................

Moreover,The organisation makes BB internet website has been a public service.

BB is less sleeping and so she doesn't know of what is comment.sorry,BB has bothered High Education.

London Met is mentioned in the press in its full glory of contributing an Al-Queda terrorist! Yet another good advert for this Roper's edifice. One good reason for its closure as it is the camp for illegal immigrants and terrorists in London.

Nice link, 'Ex-UNL'... and you, quite rightly, don't mention anything about the the fact that the major story actually concerns another university (it wouldn't do to detract from our focus on the shortcomings of London Met). Your lack of logic here is commendable too, as is the xenophobic tone; though once again, your posting is a little light on mindless insults. Not bad, though. Keep up the good work!

The idiots who want jobs for life in London Met should read Daiyl Mail today. London Met showed the way as to how illegal immigrant and terrorist camp can be cultivated within an university

Ah.. that's better - a few mindless insults. And yes, the Daily Mail is indeed an oracle of truth and integrity.

to EX-UNL. The person who replies to your message must be a staff union member. Sounds like my lecturer who is useless in his teaching and was saying the other day that he will join the strike being planned during exams. I stopped listening to my lecturers who are in London Met because they have no where else to go. Plain liers they are.

'A current London Met student': quite right to stop listening to your lecturers - who needs them anyway? All this stuff and nonsense about qualifications and knowledge. Rational thinking is over-rated; and why bother with education when you clearly already know it all already? You are a credit to the club.

We the staff and UCU in London Met only believe what we spin in our UCU website. We do not even believe in what the leftie Guardian says or even what is printed in the Morning Star. We will believe in what comrade Scargill says. You may laugh saying he was responsible for losing miners' jobs in thousands but to us in London Met he is the hero and a role model for our UCU leaders. We will follow Scargill's path and you will see where our London Met will be next year.

I almost fell laughing. Joining London Met for education!! That is a new angle!! Education and London Met, that is a new joke!! ha, ha!! It is the university which cannot even count how many students it has and how many progressed and dropped out!!!

Excellent, 'A current London Met student' - your posting has managed to incorporate mindless insults within a semi-literate framework. Your posting works well on two levels: not only is it totally free of anything factual, but it also suggests a semi-moronic level to the student body at the university. Doesn't matter that this isn't true... as you know, the club likes to remain a fact-free zone. Promising work.

We will go on strike to protect our jobs, even if it is in May. What if we admit Tamil Tiger sympathisers who blocked the Westminster Bridge. OK, it was illegal. So what? What if we admit the Al Queda person who set up a cell and who is in jail? See we do not believe it. He was here for the first class education, we give! A Chemistry student he was developing new chemical pathways that would have made a bang in the sky! London Met has character! We had Roper, we have Aylett, Link and ofcourse Tigers!!!

Naughty naughty 'We in London Met': you know perfectly well that you're actually a part of our club. No need to be coy. Making mischief is, of course, one of our main aims, and you've clearly fulfilled that particular criteria. Isn't it fantastic - our numbers are swelling by the hour. We must be at least... oh... three, by now? Today the university, tomorrow the world!

UCU M Cambellian rebuttal blogger. We will see you as us the spectators in your Scargillian march in May. Should be ashamed of demanding jobs for life.

Hmm... this sounds vaguely like a Chinese proverb. Suitably incoherent, and lacking in logic or fact; but probably a little too light on insults or offensive langauge to really count, I'm afraid. Do try to stick to the club rules.

Some us , students, have posted warning prospective home students to keep miles away from this university. The tightening up of students visas (which will sure be in the election manifesto for Tories who will get loads of votes on this alone) next year should see this illegal immigrants camp reduced in its size.

Great - a little xenophobia goes a long way. And you're quite right to warn other students... the problem with the university is that it seems to expect students to work for their degrees, and - I know, I know, its a ridiculous notion - to demonstrate maturity, independence and the potential for rational, intelligent thinking. Clearly, the sooner it stops this nonsense and starts dumbing down the provision, and spoon-feeding students, the better. In the meantime, of course, students such as yourself (who well understand the futility of education) should avoid university altogether.

I will be gone this July, if the staff union imbiciles do not start their insidious strike. But for the London Met staff who thinks he/she is logical and clever, there is no way out. Wonder if so logical and clever why not get out of this camp instead of acting as a night watchman batting out till the stumps are drawn. Pretty pathetic.

Can't you understand "The We Hate London Met Misfits and Dropouts Club "? You are not in an university. London Met is a dump and has full of con masters calling themselves academic staff fleecing HEFCE millions through student data scam. If they had an ounce of pride left, they would have got out. But then, one becomes a staff in London Met after one had tried every where and was rejected as unsuitable. From London Met, only one place to go-the job centre. But then London Met's experience after this scam has as much credibility as experience in mugging and house breaking. But Campbell and co want to sit out until the gates are awung and shut. Proper sudents do not come to London Met which s the home of Alqueda cell

Call the strike in May. We want to teach Aylett and co a lesson. If the strike fails, call another strike during clearing. Ignore the e-mail message from Aylett.

'Ex-UNL' - that's better. For a while, we thought you might have lost your edge. And 'A Current Student'... such intellectual wit and dexterity! What will the university do without you? Keep up the good work....

TO CALL THE STRIKE: Spoken as a true London Met staff! Want to talk to "The We Hate London Met Misfits and Dropouts Club " who may want to 'come out' first and join you next?

Well, 'Ex-UNL', as a founder member of our club, you would of course know. Nice example of repetition. Keep going - I think there's a very good chance we may be able bore the readership to death.

In the wake of all the Brian Roper's demise, alllegedly 99 posts in ISS are to be lost ASAP. All the Service Management and Service Ops teams go - with a few exceptions. Nothing specific about "identity management" presumably it will also be outsourced too. Vague indications a few "vendor relationship resource managers" (whoever they are) will be kept on, presumably to oversee the handover to the outsource service providers. Email outsourced too, how will today's new legislation be covered?

A relative's son is waiting to see whether he will be offered a place on the Primary PGCE course for September. Does anyone know whether the course will still be running? He is not sure whether to keep his nerve - while places elsewhere are going fast - or withdraw his application. Many thanks.