Government announces inquiry into London Met crisis

We have to be careful here. HEFCE do audits of data on a regular basis, but generally work on the basis of trusting a University when it signs the HESES data return, fairly solemly. If we would like HEFCE to turn up if it has a hunch that there might be a problem, then there's going to be a big shift in the realtionship. There would have been a report in the HESES return for LMU that showed that it had changed its assumptions about non-completions, but if the accounting officer signed that return then HEFCE hasn't got much choice but to beleive them.

What you will see, when this all washes out, is that LMU was scamming everyone. There's more corruption there then any place I have ever worked. The amount of money flushed down the toilet was just astonishing. This will be the first of a long string of revelations, mark my words.

And of course anonymous has reported all of this to the relevant authorities.

I tried when I worked there and they didn't care to hear it.... If someone wants to ask me go ahead...

What to the funding council and the police. newspapers turn down your expose !! i think not

The installation of a reputedly, kick-arse interim VC and now, a public enquiry. Finally, those responsible for this shameful mess - i.e. higher management and the board of governors - will be exposed.

HEFCE may not welcome the attention either

"HEFCE may not welcome the attention either " Good point. Looks like the whole system is flawed.

This is a sad day, indeed. The only organization that is supposed to keep an eye on the finances of a University seems to have helped the University with its scam. If this is true, and HEFCE colluded, then there is no question that criminal charges should be filed through the Serious Fraud Office. Prison time is the only thing that white collar crooks seem to understand.

The THES seems to be obsessed with London Met problems. There are a number of other issues outside London Met related to other universities like John Moores, Leeds Met and multiple other issues which do not get the attention they need. Can we give a holiday to London Met problems now that new acting VC is appointed and govt is interested in an enquiry ) even though nothing new will come out it). As London Met saga seems to run and run, it will be a good idea to open up a sub blog for London Met only so that those associated with that institution in someway could use it separate from this blog postings.

....'Give a holiday to London Met saga', there are plenty of other articles in the THES, and you could perhaps exercise your choice not to read, or contribute to, this blog, but could choose instead to focus your attention elsewhere? For those involved with, or interested in, the situation at London Met, the issues cannot (and should not) be sidelined, or brushed under the carpet. The raising of awareness of these issues has been very welcome, and has probably, at least in part, contributed to the more positive developments recently reported. The appointment of the interim VC (initially for only one day a week), and the promise of an independent inquiry has, however, not yet averted the threat of mass redundancy; and whilst we await the outcome of the inquiry, there is still a situation where those responsible for the current financial crisis remain in post whilst the future of a substantial number of lecturers, researchers, administrators and students remains in the balance. It should be remembered, too, that London Met is part of a much wider project, that of Higher Education; and the outcome of the crisis at London Met is likely to have wider consequences across the sector. For all affected, there can be no 'holiday' to this 'saga'. It must run to its proper conclusion.

I think, more than anything else, the failure of London Met highlights the fact that this shambolic scheme of "Widening Access" is a complete failure. Unsuitable, Unqualified students, enrolling at 3rd-rate post-92 new universities, on dumbed-down useless degree courses, who quickly realise that a university degree course is not for them and so drop out in the first 6 months of their 3 year course, walking away with up to £15,000 of grants & bursary. The old polytechnics should have stayed as Vocational Technical Academies, teaching HNC / HND in trades skills like plumbing, engineering, mechanics, etc. not tried to become academical universities teaching sociology.

'a judgement on widening access': can I point out that, in the case of London Met in particular, the 'failure' is not of the university, nor of the project of widening participation as a whole, but of a management. And although there may be some variation, more generally, across the provision, between institutions (and departments within institutions), to write off post-92 institutions as '3rd-rate', with 'dumbed-down useless degrees' and 'unqualified, unsuitable students' is uninformed, and simply wrong. Education is not just for the privileged; and when I last looked, sociology was only one of a plethora of subjects on offer.

"Give a holiday to London Met saga". Your post makes interesting reading and is relevant to the issues in HE. I wonder if you had noted the uncorrected evidence given to the IUS Select Committee on 6th May 2009 about plagiarism. Also the written evidence about plagiarism at LJMU (a British University with the highest national RAE rating and Teaching Quality) published recently by the Committee and publicised at the House of Common website. When staff complained to LJMU management about plagiarism and other academic failings such as research data fabrication etc they are suspended, disciplined and eventually unfairly dismissed. Thereafter they are forced to enter into a compromise agreement and out of court settlement to to seal their lips and cover up the issue of plagiarism (IUS Select Committee written evidence on the website). Concerns raised by staff about standard and quality of the product the university offer are as important to the public to know as falsifying the students number to obtain HEFCE funds by deception. The British Education reputation nationally and internationally is at stake here. Plagiarism and quality, of course, awrrant a call for an investigation similar to that at London Met to establish the truth. Managemerial failings regarding finanace and quality and standard are bad for the students, taxpayers and utimately the British Education nationally and internationally.

There is a degree of missing the point at Londonmet. The simple fact is that we were taking the money and not teaching the students - because they had already gone. So, instead of making a few tough decisions shortly after merger - as other Universities have had to do - Londonmet management could sweep their problems under the carpet until they became so awful (both problems and management) that the present debacle has ensued. Whatever HEFCE colluded in or not, the fault is entirely with a failed management structure that desperately needs the root and branch reform it is to be hoped Alfred Morris gives it.

Similary at London Met attempts tackle plagiarism were torpedoed at a senior level - they knew full well it was widespread but were terrified of anything that would threaten their progression rates. We now know these progression rates to have been artificially inflated. The fact that their performance related bonuses depended on the maintainance of these progression rates is, I'm sure, purely conincidental... Little people who threatened this status quo are dealt with ruthlessly. One fairly recent example related to plagiarism concerns an experienced and highly regarded IT manager who was forced to take 'early retirement' a year or so ago after negotiating a very competitive deal with the market leader in plagiarism detection software; academic staff wanted the system ASAP but once word reached senior level the deal was repeatedly blocked and eventually killed by the university secretary without explanation; a couple of weeks later he was given the lowest possible PRP in his peer group in an appraisal conducted by (ironically in hindsight) the finance director; shortly there after a compromise agreement appeared and he was gone. It all stinks to high heaven. Needless to say this is just one of very many examples that will be brought before the independent inquiry - individually these cases might be easy to dismiss but as a whole they provide a compelling body of evidence. Something as piffling as academic standards is very low on the managerial agenda at London Met. Looking forward to my day in the witness chair.

Managerial failings are not confined to London Met but it is rife at Liverpool John Moores University. Another Tribunal case against Liverpool John Moores University; number 28! Anybody listening? Anybody watching? An academic has accused Liverpool John Moores University of terminating his contract despite having guaranteed him three years' employment if he succeeded in a grant application. John Middleton, former president of the University and College Union branch at Liverpool John Moores and senior lecturer in engineering, is taking the institution to an employment tribunal, claiming unfair dismissal. For over 4 years Mr Middleton has represented a member of staff who made revelations about plagiarism. Mr Middleton written to UCU and confirmed that plagiarism at the School Of Sport and Exercise Science has taken place and widespread. Now the member of staff as well as Mr Middleton are sacked! Mr Middleton alleges that when he was nearing his 65th birthday, managers persuaded him to apply for a research grant worth more than £200,000 over three years. His claim states: "I agreed to do this on the condition that I would be employed to the end of the contract." The claim form says that a senior manager "agreed verbally" to this, but after the grant arrived, he was given a retirement date three months after his 65th birthday, well before the end of the contract. A spokeswoman for Liverpool John Moores said: "While Mr Middleton may feel happy to discuss the details of his case, the university would not wish to respond." melanie.newman@tsleducation.com.

This thread is specifically "Government inquiry into London Met". I would suggest you a seperate thread for LJMU. Thankyou.

We had enough of London Met stories. These stories will run and run until this institution closes. Let us hear about LJMU problems.

"Adam Afriyie, Conservative Shadow Science Minister, pointed out that the only people paying the price for the debacle were London Met lecturers and students." As someone currently holding a place to start studying Architecture at undergraduate level at the Met in Sept I am worried. It is suppose a great department, some say the university's best. In an Building Design article in Feb, a university spokeswoman said: “It is too early to say what, if any, affect there will be in the Department of Architecture and Spatial Design.” Is it still too early today to tell whether the potential 550 job cuts will affect the architecture department? Many thanks to anyone willing to help clarify this for me. I am hesitating whether to entrust my costly and lengthy education with the Met.

Do these allegations reveal a string of academic malpractice along side the managerial malpractice? Should I consider switching to an another university before it is too late? Any advices, please help me...

Hello future London Met Students - I was offered a place at London Met and I am not taking it. I determined that it is best to move away from a troubled institution like London Met which is in the news almost 6 months. I am going to naother university in London.

Anyone who measures the quality of an institution solely by the number of times it has appeared in the press should perhaps review their own suitability, in terms of critical ability, for university life. Anyone serious about going to university needs to research into the provision of their particular subject of interest, across the whole sector, before making this really important decision. To the student who asks whether the allegations 'reveal a string of academic malpractice along side the managerial malpractice', the answer is, clearly, no: misnamagement of funding is not an academic issue, and does not reflect on the quality of the academic provision on offer. And to the poster who has 'had enough of London Met stories', I suggest you exercise your choice and read something else rather than obsessing over this particular thread. As 'Shining a light into dark corners' observes, there is a compelling body of evidence in existence; and it is the kind of evidence which will only be brought to light through independent scrutiny. Those with nothing to hide welcome the prospect of an independent inquiry, and hope for better days.