Universities department abolished

I'm very concerned about the "commercialisation of [...] science". Any science that does not have an immediate and obvious economic benefit is likely to suffer. This will stifle research and the postgraduate and postdoctoral workers are going to be the first up against the wall.

So that confirms it then. Universities are to be regarded as the servants of business. Guess we had it coming.

So now we are to be run by a department in whose name we are not even mentioned led by a minister who was not elected. That DIUS has been abolished after two years speaks volumes about the competence of John Denham

I'm afraid that - once again - HE has been an afterthought in government restructuring. It's shocking that the sector is not associated with education in any major sense. We'll just have to hope that the new minister responsible has the necessary experience and interest in HE/FE to have some influence on Lord M. Depressing times indeed. When's the next election?

As if the Rammell-Denham "ELQ" ignominy wasn't calamitous enough, now we have this. Who outside a tiny Government circle believes that economic ends represent education's only real driver and justification? -- yet we must all conform to this numskull "vision", powerless, it seems, to counteract the increasing obsessionality with which it's being implemented. Gordon Brown had his chance today to row in an opposite direction; instead he has shown us what he's really made of. He'll pay a heavy price.

feck 'em, they'll be out on their ears by this time next year.

A petition, posted by Prof. JF Allen (QMUL), "to promote discovery and innovation in UK science" went online at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/honest-discovery/ late on Tuesday this week. It has attracted close to 900 signatures to date. Given, however, the news that (i) Mandelson - arrgghh, Mandelson, for pity's sake - is to head up the Department of Business, Innovation, and Skills and, (ii) the government appears committed to wrecking the country's basic science base (as pointed out by Phil Willis), this petition has taken on added significance. Please consider signing it.

Apologies - the link in the previous comment isn't very clear. It should be "http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/honest-discovery/". And it also should be "..head up the **new** Department of Business, Innovation, and Skills." The thought of Mandelson having a new higher education role - combined with his current business, innovation and skills brief - meant that I was somewhat distracted when writing the comment!

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, you get this - a wholesale (!) subjection of our higher education to the demands of business. Incredible. Followed by an equally pathetic response by our Union General Secretary - "seeking assurances" indeed, dream on dear Sally. And don't forget the role of that arch turncoat, Diane Warwick, in all this - talk of poacher turned gamekeeper. I sincerely trust that UCU Left will mount a vigorous campaign against this outrage.

This is not good news for all those who feel that government policy on higher education is already driven too much by the presumed needs of business and the economy

So, universities are so important that they deserve their own special department that is completely detached from the rest of Whitehall? Academics complain when they are told that teaching is all that matters in universities. They complain when they are told that research has to be relevant to the people who are paying for it, taxpayers. Come to think of it, academics just complain. If universities sit in the department that just might want to turn all that research into neat ideas, they can at least make the case for academic independence. Hived off into an education department, they are just one of those peripheral activities that governments have to put up with, like prisons. Mandleson was, by the way, the only DTI Secretary of State in living memory who seemed to get the point about innovation. (Anyone remember the names of any others?) That's why, rumour has it, BERR's staff clapped him back into the building. God help us if/when Cameron is in charge of innovation. Maybe we will get new ways of cleaning moats and removing mole hills for his toff mates.

Those of us who have worked hard for many years to secure the creation of universal services of information, advice and guidance on learning and work for all adults across the UK, will be urging the new department to give priority to the proposed Adult Advancement and Careers Service in England, as a vital underpinning not just for the economy but for the creation of a fairer and more inclusive society.

I suppose that means British colleges and universities will be expected to eliminate such programmes as neuroscience, theology, history, medicine, clinical psychology, literature, and physics, which have little or nothing to do with being economically competitive.

"neuroscience, theology, history, medicine, clinical psychology, literature, and physics" You have forgotten some of those areas that continuously point out the problems money generation can also cause, ranging from environmental pollution through to social wellbeing.

@Arthur Kipps: In common with research council respresentatives, the erstwhile Universities Secretary, and the Science Minister, you grossly misrepresent the concerns of academics. The same tired old "ivory tower" stereotype is dragged out and academics are accused of not doing research which is "relevant" to the taxpayer. First, it'd be helpful to define just what you mean by relevant. Is the study of, oh, let's say, the fundamental quantum mechanics underpinning the relationship between electrical resistance and magnetism in thin films sufficiently relevant to the taxpayer? Second, you seem to believe that Mandelson understands the role that universities play in the "innovation ecosystem". I'm afraid I don't share your confidence in Mandelson's abilities! In what sense did he "get the point" about innovation? Third, it is perhaps helpful to consider the fundamental economic rationale underpinning state support of academic research. One might ask why, if the research is near-market, is it not the market/industry (rather than the state) that supports it?

@Arthur Kipps: You rather gratuitously imply that universities (or academics) believe that "universities are so important that they deserve their own special department that is completely detached from the rest of Whitehall". The second part of this sentence is isn't at all what the previous posts suggest and I have never heard anyone in a university remotely imply that they wanted anything of the sort. Many academics probably do however feel that there should be a separate ministry which can fight universities' corner in government and within Whitehall. It's actually not such an odd idea, although maybe you have not bothered to look at what happens elsewhere (e.g.: Germany's Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, France's Ministère de l'enseignement supérieur et de la recherche). That universities do not have such a ministry in the UK speaks volumes about how they are regarded. Looks as if you agree.

Perhaps we should also marvel at the supreme contempt shown by Brown for higher education when, in the midst of the gravest corruption scandal ever to affect our politics, he foists on us a twice-disgraced politician whoh should have been investigated by Inspactor Knacker of the Urad rather than given a plum sinecure in Brussels. I never liked his Italian symphony anyway.

I thought this article had something to do with closing our department. Phew! Okay, sorry, back to gown room. Where did I leave my copy of "Letter to Menoeceus" I wonder? Under the mace, I suspect. Back momentarily . . .

I do hope that merging the two departments isn't indicative of giving business more influence over the running of universities.

@ Walter Cairns - Of course we’re basically in accord but Sally Hunt and Diana Warwick need to be sharply distinguished from one another, absolutely not lumped together! Sally Hunt’s “seeking assurances” is essentially code: I see no evidence that she’s not fighting her - our - corner with her usual forcefulness and acumen, even if a case can be made for stepping up the public rhetoric. Warwick by contrast always was a frightening creature. Remember her infamous media comments ten years ago about education for its own sake (also code) taking us “back to the monasteries”? Naturally, there’s a debate to be had about how best to respond to this new and desperate imposition, and I’m certainly not recommending pulling any punches. On the contrary - my sense of it is that we defenders of education in its real, broad sense are at last realising the strength there is in unity and will be drowning out Mandelson’s “Italian symphony” by all means in our power - because we do have power, if we but use it. A first step is to work with and through CALL and its affiliate organisations.

During the reshuffle, dear Mandy was also appointed to the role of "The Lord President of the Council", which the English Wikipedia article on the same (as accessed today) currently notes: "In the 19th century, the Lord President was generally the cabinet member responsible for the educational system amongst their other duties. This role was gradually scaled back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries but remnants of it remain, such as the oversight of the governance of various universities." Curiouser and curiouser ...?

I urge any of you who are angry or disappointed at this move to email their MP, whether one in power, but especially if in opposition. The more the problems of this decision are brought to the attention of our representatives, the better chance there is that a new government will take it seriously. They aren't going to be pouring over the comments sections of the THS, sadly.

Education is starting to look like the banking crisis, only difference is people don't realise that they are being ripped off.I am talking about corporations in education, either FE or HE. The model I am talking about is the casual worker agency that covers the entire country eventually and becomes a dictator on price and service standards. I know of a few. For example, if I lose my job in one university, I can possibly go to another: that way several people judge the quality of my work. However, if all universities are owned by one company, then my job becomes dependent on one manager and his manager: and I will find that I cannot even sue that company for unfair dismissal because the ‘no win/no fee’ solicitor will tell me that they are too big to take to court, as they will endlessly appeal, and my resources will dwindle too quickly. Therefore my anti-discrimination/employment rights are affected. In effect, I am then black listed because of the large influence of that company. If I say that I am a disabled staff member due to my dyslexia, this may be dismissed and the awkwardness of the situation I find myself in, without trade union support, may mean that rather than report bullying by other staff, students, managers, I have to keep my mouth shut in case I lose my job. I am vulnerable. But even trade unions say they’re powerless. Or being in such a trade union, I get less work. Let’s say my manager doesn’t know anything about how my dyslexia affects my work, he went on a training course, ya, but he did not chose to commit himself to really understanding it, he was too busy, and anyway it was much easier to just squeeze me out, by the mechanism of the admin staff gradually reducing my hours to zero: with the “we will be in contact when we get more work” generic email. That was easier on him and on the company profits, because otherwise acknowledging the theory/practice gap on the ground, with all its PC debates, meant that he had to train all his staff more, therefore £££. No, it was much easier to phase me out, or sack me. In that situation I would favour being sacked because at least then his or her dirty dealings are visible and I have the satisfaction of evidence on my side. Being phased out is more cruel in a way, by way of its invisibility, more humiliating, more poor mental health inducing, more economic uncertainty, fear of the future. Let’s say that I see poor practice on the ground: my other manager, a different sector of the company, the college or university, is bullying staff by cutting their hours down, while the ‘poor practices’ staff are being rewarded by more hours, and given better rooms too, plus a better admin service. The emailing system is used for ‘we never got your email’ mechanism of wind up. then the service users start to recognise these reward systems and know that they are in some kind of dog house, so they move to the other staff area, not knowing that they are getting the poor practice service, but they do not know any better, or they join in in this corruption and start up their own bullying practices. Then how can the good practice staff member, who may also be experiencing discrimination, possibly over race and disability, or age and sex, report that manager to the other manager? So, what if during a dismissal procedure they explain all this to their employer manager, who agrees that there were structural weaknesses that drove standards down and promises change, but when they return to the other manager things are worse than before: the other managers and their loyal staff have just thought up new, more hidden ways to make that ‘whistle blower’ suffer. But the employer just says, “oh no, not you again”, when you go back to report the new situation. And when they are throwing your career in the bin, “why didn’t you tell us?” when you go running to your professional membership jismail, looking for support. You cannot even tell them half of what is happening because you know the shock will cause a kind of professional deafness, belonging to those who do not really know what happens in disadvantaged situations, having never lived among those disadvantaged groups, or belonging to them. Have we not seen these stories of discrimination in the press? Considering that we work in teaching language and Admin, is not racial, class, and dyslexia discrimination likely to be a major source of bullying? How can a manager in a large company offset this?, especially if other staff have been weaned on the above process. Business as usual. I must be living in cloud coo coo land if I think anything is going to change. Though Ofsted said that in my role as SENCO, I ran the best dyslexia service they had ever seen, by three times. And when you are naïve to these practices being an everyday occurrence in HE and FE, with the only staff staying being the ‘non-trouble makers’: how can we really put anti-discrimination at the front? Though we think up all sorts of fancy ways of describing it, the academics, policy makers, all out to lunch on the proceeds. Blair government practices of window dressing Vs reality suppression techniques, fuelled by the media. Certainly we are demonstrating to the students that nothing has changed when the staff with the full time jobs are all white, and the agency staff are all black, minority, or come from disadvantaged situations. The only few token, non whites, say things to their fellow black staff members like... “I don’t do black”. Therefore agency staff practices promote the worst kind of discrimination, and they even tell you to your face “so, what are you going to do about it?” If you do get a job with security it’s because you will join the established order of things. We know that social mobility is dropping at a faster rate from previously, Andrew Neil: this is your “never got the email” society at work. The same is true for the vulnerable disabled people and the groups that try to protect their rights. Our democracy and its society depends on fair competition: that’s why they have laws on this subject. In monopoly situations managers are aware that the individual staff member is powerless and they cannot but help use their corporate status to hide behind when things go wrong. This is a weakness that breeds a culture of bullying. Just look at the ‘corporate’ weaknesses of Haringey Council, where staff on the ground were not given any power to take control of the situation, in spite of several whistle blowing attempts by staff. I work with a lot of social workers. The results were a child being visited something like 60 times, but still nothing was done. The staff said the boss had bred a culture of : Put up, or Push Off. And it is this culture that breeds in corporations, they become top heavy because the staff on the ground are not taken seriously, or their reports of complications in practice are quashed. Clear breaches of the law are covered up. So you Steve, or any other small company, shouldn’t consider my protests as relevant to you. I am talking about Faceless Corporatism, and how they breed cultures of bullying: those who see flaws in day to day delivery of services are weeded out. They either bring these to someone’s attention, or they are sacked, or they leave. But then you are driving out your most conscientious staff. We know that teachers and nurses have suffered as a profession, as a result. This is already evident/our experience. This is not a dread or a hypothetical. Please do not think that it is about profit/non-profit, it is about Size, Monopoly, Areas of Influence to do with Size, Too big to keep contact with practice on the ground, that is the main weakness of this service, and the huge combine of TURNOVER, being inappropriate. The Michael Jackson School of Democracy: too big to sue. While the individual worker is atomised down to nothing.

I currently have a job offer from DIUS (working in HE) - could anyone give me an assessment as to whether I am likely to find that my job disappears shortly after my arrival, particularly if a Conservative electoral victory were to see yet another Machinery of Government re-organisation of where HE is situated within the Civil Service? I need to give them a yay or nay by the end of the week so informed advice is very welcome!

I'd say join them but be prepared to spend several hours in meetings wholeheartedly embracing this round of restructuring and then do the same during the second round when Labour are out. Do that and you'll be fine. If you do get axed, just mention at future interviews elsewhere that the biggest challenge you overcame was managing or implementing the restructures!

Clearly this indicates that Labour government do not identify HE as a key area for funding and investment and that it sees business development as far more important. Presumably it is relying on HE to support and help revitalise the weak economy. It's even more depressing that Peter M is going to be leading the DBIS...I have absolutely no faith in him whatsoever. Does anyone?? Seriously???