V-cs' candid views slip out online

I'm appalled by the obscene comment by one vice-chancellor concerning academic freedom - the need to form a "network of people involved in intelligence-gathering to be able to deal swiftly with even the faintest hint of revolution" and at the same time, his/her cynical comment about the importance of providing quality education. This vice-chancellor should be exposed and asked to step down, as he/she is, by virtue of these views, not suited to managing a university.

This needs publishing on wikileaks.

I feel unable to continue in employment in a paradigm (or parody) of education where scholarship is regarded as subsidiary to cash for courses and where the management 'vision' is suppression of freedom and dissent. Thank you for publishing this and helping me make the decision to send in my letter of resignation.

Can't wait to read more. While these comments clearly challenge traditional academic values, they show that VCs are operating in the real world with an eye on keeping their institutions in <gasp> 'business'.

Perhaps the biggest surprise about this is that these comments have actually come as a surprise. And may I gently point out to Mr. or Ms Living in the Real World the difference between educating a nation and selling a packet of crisps.

I for one, as a mark of protest, shall "turn down" my IQ-at-work by 10% - see how they like that!...

I'm pleased someone has been so frank. However much we wring hands, we should understand that we don't all agree on the definitions of "university", "education" and so on. That's fine, but we need to know where we stand. If, for argument's sake, it turned out that all VCs thought like that - then those who have an altogether more idealised version of auniversity education in mind might well decide to depart. The VCs would be left with those who agree with them, and could get on with the job. The question then would be wether they are actually able to sell what people want to buy. Ultimately, it might seem that everyone wants to buy a good pass grade - well, that can be done. Of course, it wouldn't mean what they might like it to mean- "...of above average educational standard" or "...more employable" or whatever. The, some customers might break away from that system and say that they want something with more intrinsic quality. At this point, some of those idealistic academics could band to gether to provide something like that, focussing on academic integrity (howsoever defined). Now, if everyone involved were of like mind, and if the name hadn't been taken, you could call that institution a "University" (the original meaning of the word) but as things stand, you'd need to find a new, distinct term. Does this kind of talk constitute "hint of revolution"? - will the secret police be on to me now?

"Branding and marketing take the front seat, and education is in the back." Sums up a lot that is wrong with the modern corporate world. Too many organisations seem content to churn out crap products and then rely on flashy (and expensive) branding and marketing to cover up the cracks and convince people to buy it, rather than putting a little more effort into the product itself.

"The, some customers might break away from that system and say that they want something with more intrinsic quality. At this point, some of those idealistic academics could band to gether to provide something like that, focussing on academic integrity (howsoever defined). Now, if everyone involved were of like mind, and if the name hadn't been taken, you could call that institution a "University" " Only if those customers were prepared to meet the real cost of the salaries, pensions, libraries, legislative compliance, research assets and accommodation of those idealistic academics - oh wait - that IS a university.

Although this research was conducted in 2005, it would seem that the general ethos of VC's attitudes to education has not changed at all. Currently universities round the UK are facing gross cutbacks and the introduction of redundancies for academics, not withstanding at the same time, these very insititutions are advertising for a large number of managerial positions that have mysteriously been conjured up notwihstanding these difficult times! It is sad that these people bare no reflection of the sentiment of academics that are trying to the best of their ability to offer an education with substance (rather than glitz)!

@Walter Cairns. Whilst sympathising with your likely stance, you may want to reconsider your view that our universities are "educating a nation". In fact higher education in its entirety, only educates 43% of our 17-30 year olds. Perhaps you meant to say that at current rates, our universities are "educating quite a lot less than half of the nation". See: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000839/SFR02-2009webversion1.pdf Inflating the importance of universities by characterising them as all that stops the nation decending into drooling ignorance is always a mistake. If only that really were the case.

Oh yes.. and people who are educated never ever pass any of their good practice, knowledge and experience to anyone I suppose? Poor David you are just too caught up in statistics!

Sadly there is far too much concern with glitz over substance these days. A prime example to me is the University of Southampton shelling out to have a new logo designed and rebranding all buildings, stationary, the unviersity-subsidised bus service, with said new logo whilst selling off an entire CAMPUS because they can't afford to run it. I recognise that the cost of this new logo is by no means equal to the cost of running an entire campus but it begs the question of what else the university is burning money on whilst cutting costs in the academic areas. I also suspect that many of you have similar experiences in other universities.

"We all know that education is a commodity that can be bought and sold, often at a very high price," he says. "So universities are busy doing that - charging students a large amount of money to study in England because it is a popular destination. Branding and marketing take the front seat, and education is in the back." Nothing new and we the non-UCU lot knew and accepted this as the sign of changing times unlike the fossilised UCU lot. As a first step, Imperial rector has floated the idea of privatised British IVY league universities which will loosen the end of govt and HEFCE funded practice and academic staff will be paid by the results. Look at the front entrances of King's College Strand, the UCL and Imperial and one would recognise the luminaries who studied there as a first stage in branding. As for the SotonStudent , the next generation, he/she better learn this quickly or be fossilised with the NUS lot. Lecturers who are moaning here about cutbacks will go soon soon as the next stage arrives with academics who will fund their own salary, their group's salaries and their research facilities through external collaboration and funding. Sign of changing times blokes!!

Higher education has been treated as a commodity, particularly since 1994ish, but the market is crashing now and so universities will have to shrink as students from abroad won't come to the UK - it's too expensive and the world economy is.... An international student body provides a wonderful learning opportunity but not if it is the result of ripping off people from countries where education spending has been so severely capped by the IMF and co they are forced to study at universities abroad. It smacks of colonialism. I know students who come to the UK on British Council grants to study privatisation of public services and then go back and do the dirty deeds.

Some years ago, the marketing department of the Faculty of Business and Law at Leeds Metropolitan University informed me that they did not work on promoting research in the faculty (so at that moment in time there was no link to it on their revamped web site), as their remit was to attract student bums on seats (by which they meant undergrads only). Apparently the pre-entry research done by postgrads into the credentials of the academics teaching and supervising their studies was not relevant and did not attract bums on seats, or at least not ones that were seen of any importance to Marketing at that time. The current marketing director is excellent and much more enlightened. However, this does not seem to apply to other managers. Last year, a faculty manager, in front of me (a temp at the time) and another witness, announced that Leeds Met was "a teaching-only" university (his exact words and see comments above - there is no such thing!) and somewhat libellously, that "researchers don't work hard enough". Obviously, in feeling confident in voicing this, I am assuming that he was promoting an established management view, presumably endorsed by the then Dean - and in respect of the continuing demotivating scenario surrounding researchers in that department that I have recently witnessed (in contravention of the much-hyped-in-the-media Leeds Met Well-being strategy), also by the new Dean (a non-academic, who previously and up to recently worked for a failed bank). George Monbiot has been voicing his concerns about the increasing move away from independent thinking in science research and funding since 2006 and again recently in the Guardian, and his perception that this is being seriously hampered by the push towards commercialised funding of research is not just confined to science but all subject areas. It is demonstrated by the dominance of finance and management input in the determinance of research policies in universities such as Leeds Met, and has serious implications not just for the nation's ability to be at the forefront of knowledge acquisition and dissemination, but for the status of our university system globally. Research is not just and must not be perceived as an inconvenient bolt-on to a university - it defines the very nature of such a learning institution. The current attitude towards research of some influential university managers may yet impact on the quality of service in HE, on postgraduate students enrolment and their experience and on the ability to attract overseas students to our centres of knowledge. Simon Jenkins, in the Guardian last month, advocated a move towards more privatised HE institutions, but also to some re-modelling themselves on the French academies of excellence. Leeds Met appears to be well on the way to reducing its classification as a "university" this way through their approach in many areas to what constitutes "research" with an apparent preference for commercially-funded projects and a current declaration from Steve Pashley, HR Director, that the new round of redundancies will centre on research areas over and before teaching which says it all. Management staff, in my experience, often seem to confuse or conflate consultancy projects (the use of research skills and academic knowlege to provide a product tailored to a client's requirements) with pure academic research (resulting in publications that might just be cited and so count); the later which they seem reluctant to accommodate in spite of the added value of this to the institution, the learning environment, the personal and career development of the academics themselves and the vital quality and capacity contribution to (highly competitive)funding bids. This is not to say that consultancy-orientated research does not provide a valuable service that is also useful in creating networks and for acquiring information - but it is rarely "blue-skies"/independent thinking, even where informed by such, and many managers do not seem to know or care about the difference. The extreme focus on third stream funding which they promote is already, in my observations anyway, proving to be to the detriment of the contribution of cutting edge knowledge into teaching or into academically-valid research outputs - the latter may well affect adversely the quality of the content of course materials and any future results in research assessment exercises and so research funding support. Leeds Met is a university that has blatantly spent money on branding (with even more expected if ever the re-naming comes in), balloons, student hoodies, sponsorship of rugby, brass bands, ballet and opera, and the dubiously-funded Bollywood film industry, amongst other costly "partnerships" and linkages that seem irrelevant to knowledge or skills gain for anyone as far as I can ascertain. This does not seem to be unique to Leeds Met and the future of "new" universities in particular and their approaches to HE delivery is a cause for national concern and debate. Do we need such establishments to be true "universities" (with research at their hearts) or if not, stop pretending they are that and find another name. Polytechnic, perhaps? A new philosophy underpinning the nature, direction, service delivery and intellectual value of HE in this country, especially in respect of the universities lower down the rankings, is urgently needed. I would also like to see university management attitudes and training reviewed, as the working interface between them and genuine academics often seems to be unsatisfactory and even damaging in many instances (see, for example, previous blogs re Leeds Met in THES and other publications). Whilst financial considerations are certainly key, I hope we can then continue to develop - and demonstrate the desire to develop - an HE sector in which the nation and its graduates can be truly proud, strongly rooted in world-class and independently-acquired knowledge.

These were transcribed taped conversations. Some intonation *may* have been lost. . So, taking a deep breath, lean back in your chair, and try saying "deal swiftly with even the faintest hint of revolution" without irony. . Our North American friends don't do irony, which is probably why the author of this paper is still waiting for a participant's consent for quotes to be used.

"Iron VC" - dearly hope there's ironry in that title - may be correct that the strength of sentiment might be lost in transcription, and indeed, the "network of intelligence gathers" may be within or outside an institution, but what is clear here is that VCs are operating within a closed shop- remember there is only ~100 of them and the same poor decisions seem to sweep HE simultaneously. Increasingly, VCs are reducing funding of courses, pooling resources for the "centre". At my university, 50% of funding goes to the schools to pay for all aspects of education, with the other 50% going to the centre. There is no comparison with the costs here between the two and no excuse that the courses should be squeezed this way. Students are often horrified to find that since paying top-up fees for what they believed were "better funded" courses, their course actually recieved far less. In fact my course only recieves 11% of student fees to cover staff fees, space and resources. Where the other 89% goes is unclear, but the VC's £1m hospitality budget may be a good place to look! I'd advise all academics in all institutions to put in FOIs for VCs expenses.

Southampton seems to have a bit of a history of invidious VCs. The current one is certainly of ithe lk that sees a university as a business first and place of learning second, which is probably why so many staff have been downsized while his ever-growing salary has increased beyond inflation. His relentless pursuit of overseas student money through the medium of paid-for jollies and endless publicity photos has at least had the payoff of a knighthood. With his term of office shortly to conclude he can, like all VCs, scuttle off and leave the academics to try and cope with the fallout of his cost-cutting. Being paid more than the PM and knowing that you'll be gone before the bad decisions can get you - it's not surprising it's an arrogant little club.