Axe hovers over Imperial’s faculty of medicine

I do not want to diminish the seriousness of the situation higlighted in this article, however I wouldn't choose to inflame it either. If I understand Sally's proposition correctly; first you guess at what the figure might be “(w)e are still waiting for full details of exactly how many redundancies there might be in the faculty. However, as many as 80 academic jobs (21 per cent of the total) and 50 administrative and technical staff may be threatened."; then build on that assumption with some speculation "“It is difficult to see how the faculty could function after cuts and disruption on this scale when students arrive for the new academic session.” To reach the conclusion that London is facing “a crisis in higher education”.

The previous poster is ill-informed: the numbers quoted by Sally Hunt are those quoted by Imperial College in the document sent to UCU but it may not be limited to those; the conclusion of "a crisis in higher education” is not based purely on this announcement, but on similar events across London Colleges. Those affected will not share your dispassionate and insensitive view of such an unprecedented job cull, and It is difficult to see what is achieved by trying to dampen down criticism of events of this nature. Geoff Williams, Imperial UCU

Geoff - I was trying to be dispassionate as I have a concern with extrapolating conclusions from assumptions. I am not insensitive to the issues, having been made redundant in a previous role, I fully understand the personal impact that these decisions have. And I only wished to dampen down the rhetoric to the extent that it has been enflamed beyond proportion. The union is right to be concerned about jobs, but if you are really saying that the current position amounts to a crisis, then I think it says more about your sense of proportion than my capacity for sensitivity. For example, in 2001, when THE reported 1,000 academic job losses in London, it wasn't a cause for cheer, but nor was it heralded as a sign of the end times.

Dear In the Absence of Facts this is a different point than the first one you made, and you haven't acknowledged the factual error that I pointed out. I repeat: the conclusion that London is facing "a crisis in higher education” is not based purely on this announcement, but on similar events across London Colleges. But I concede that the flow of the article can lead the unwary reader to your conclusion. On your separate point though, I would only question your priorities: why "dampening down the rhetoric" is more important to you than the facts of the case themselves. Sally Hunt is the leader of UCU: she is not a neutral party. I have yet to experience a case of dismissals on this scale which, when met with understatement and caution from the relevant unions, has led to a successful result for the workers concerned. See e.g. recent industrial disputes at Lindsey oil refinery, Visteon etc. Can I respectfully suggest thatI you apply the appropriate balance by publicly suggesting to Imperial College and other London universities that they dampen down their enthusiasm for redundancies? Or do you simply accept them as a given? A UCU Imperial College committee member, speaking in a personal capacity

Dear Geoff - you seem to have developed the same tendency towards exaggeration that I initially made against Sally. You reference Visteon, where the number of redundancies represented 60% of the workforce, that would be the equivalent of 3,600 redundancies at ICL. If the sector was in meltdown to that level, we would be looking at 200,000 redundancies. My argument was, and remains, that a sense of perspective/proportion might result in a higher quality of discussion around these matters. With regard to Imperial I am not aware that they have any "enthusiasm for redundancies". As in my experience the staff there are decent people, possessed of a conscience I doubt if they have ever proposed these measures with any kind of enthusiasm, but I look forward to your proportionate explanation setting me straight on this.

Several Russell Group Universities are looking to make significant cuts, cuts which have not been spelled out in detail but which the management say will involve job-losses. These include UCL (which talks about a 6% cut in its spending), Imperial and QUB (7%). What these percentage figures mean in financial terms is still unclear - not least because "consultation" with the trade unions is risible. The problem is not the subjective "enthusiasm" or otherwise of senior management. It is their failure to spell out to Government and public what these cuts will mean. They have singularly failed to put the case for publicly funded Higher Education sector, ergo, when cuts are proposed they sit, publicly silent, merely finessing their implementation plan. Cuts in HE will reduce the quality and range of what gets taught to students and increase the dependence of research activity from private funding sources. They undermine what a University is. The most important lesson in the current situation is one staff learned around the time of the UCL-Imperial Merger several years ago. If Management say "its inevitable" about any proposal it is because they have no other argument. Collectively, staff are strong. Universities run on goodwill. If staff start to campaign and object there are many things that they can do to challenge Management's priorities. As UCL UCU Branch Secretary allow me to send a message of support to my Imperial colleagues - stand firm and remember: an injury to one is an injury to all.

Sean - I don't recognise the argument you are putting forward. Senior Management may not indulge in overt public clamouring for funds, but they have hardly been passive either. In terms of funding, the income of the university sector in 1996/97 was £11.1bn in 2007/08 it was £23.4bn, now I don't think that's bad going at all. As to the cuts in spending, these may lead to job losses, neither I nor you know to what extent, nor do we know how these will be managed. However it is notable that the typical response of HEIs has been to seek any such change in staffing through vacancy freezes, early retirements and voluntary severance arrangments. Regarding your comment that "Universities run on goodwill"; regrettably, under capitalism I think you'll find they also need money, hence the current problems.

The original article makes it clear that "Union research, to be published on Thursday 16 July in Times Higher Education magazine, shows that one in three of the capital’s major universities is cutting or looking to cut jobs." Presumably that will further detail the level of cuts across the capital. Although the likelihood is that there are more to come. Would any of us put it past universities making the majority of announcements for job losses during the summer holidays? I note things at Imperial appear to be getting worse. In a letter in today's Guardian, Sally Hunt names it as one of three institutions (along with the University of West England and Exeter) as chopping language departments.

Gosh why does it look like the more junior people will be the ones to fall victim to this. Surely, Anderson and Sykes before him made grave errors in over-expansion and poor management of RAE expectations. Is it likely that any of them will go- I think not?

I can certainly understand In the Absence of Fact's scepticism towards Sally Hunt's claims after recent events. Asking for an 8% pay increase and demanding guarantees that jobs would not be cut in a middle of a recession does not come across as being terribly grounded in reality. Therefore, I too tend to be a little sceptical about the statements she releases. Nevertheless, the scale of the proposed redundancies does sound surprisingly large - I'd be interested to know what proportion of that department's staff that actually represents as that would provide some useful context and I certainly understand why the Union would oppose those cuts. What I find surprising about this story is the fact that the cuts are in the medical arena - an area of study that is typically a cash cow both in terms of student fees and research. Granted, NHS funding for places has been reduced, but srely the department would still be a money spinner? I'm surprised that Imperial haven't decided to cut other departments first (not that I would be terribly happy about that either). Sadly, I suspect that this is merely the tip of the iceberg as Universities struggle to cope with an ever-decreasing pot of money.

It is clear if you take a wider view that London and the country are facing a crisis in higher education, of which the proposed redundancies in Medicine and Languages at Imperial are only one part. <p>“In the Absense of Facts” claims that 1,000 job losses in academia across London in 2001 were not seen as “the end times”. Leaving aside whether the sector saw this level of cuts that year, it should be clear already that we are already seeing worse proposals than this: 550 Full time equivalents (800 posts) at London Met alone. 130 at Imperial. That’s 930 jobs in just two institutions. Wait to count up the damage at the end of the summer as see whether you still think this is not worse than 2001. The unions are absolutely right to treat this as extremely serious. <p>Also, the rhetoric at fault here is to imply that “crisis” is equivalent to “the end times” (except quite possibly for London Met, where it may well be the end times, which would be a disaster for its large body of working class students.) I don’t see the link in Geoff Williams’ post or in other statements coming from UCU nationally or the branches that are being affected by these cuts between “crisis” and “the end times”. Only Absence of Facts seems to (disproportionately?) link a “crisis” with “the end times”. <p>What also seems disproportionate to me is that some universities, including apparently Imperial are seeking to cut posts under the excuse of a recession when they are not in fact in financial difficulties, and to defend this behavior. <p>Additionally, it seems completely counterproductive for any institution to be cutting foreign language provisions. Any student at any university doing any degree should have the opportunity (if not the requirement) to study a language as part of their degree. The THE should consider doing one of their famous league tables to publish for each institution just how much they have in reserves, how much is added to that each year, any real funding cuts and the job cuts that may or may not have a financial “need”. If, as is the case in some institutions, jobs are being cut when there are no real funding losses, we certainly do have a crisis in education: a crisis in failing to understand that education is one of the ways to ensure stability as you go through a recession and come out the other side ready to return to a healthier economy. <p>A recession does not mean necessary job losses in all industries, and unions have a responsibility first to their members and in the case of an education union to the profession and standards of that profession. To make people redundant instead of protecting their jobs will put them on benefit. It will stunt or destroy their careers and their productivity as well as that of the country. It will decrease the quality of the student experience at universities as fewer people will have to teach more students. The union is absolutely right to seek to keep these people in their jobs when the student numbers are not going down and the funding cuts are un-necessary and arbitrary. <p>The union is also right to raise this is the wider context beyond Imperial as it is happening (during the summer break) at about 2/3 of universities. This at a time when we are being told that there will be as many as 40,000 students seeking university places without funding to accommodate them. When did we suddenly reverse the stated goal of having 50% of students educated to degree level by 2015 or whenever the stated date was? We don’t even have enough places for those children starting primary school this year. Should those 5 year olds take a gap year? Did we not notice the birth numbers five years ago that allowed the prediction of the numbers for this year’s intake? What is this but a crisis? Banks are bailed out and HE is floundering. Imperial is ranked 5th and 11th out of about 164 institutions. Is this seriously such a failing that parts of it should be dismantled? Or is it that the RAE is a pointless exercise that allows excuses to turn educational institutions into poorly run businesses to the detriment of the students, the staff and the needs of the country? <p>In terms of the criticisms of the pay claim from UCU this year, are you not aware that Sally Hunt, as the employed General Secretary of a union puts the case for issues such as pay awards based on the decision of special conferences of members and those members elected to the National Excecutive Committee. She is doing what the union has voted that she should do.

Question Mark, you make some very good points. Yes, I am aware of the way that UCU reached their decision and you're quite right to say it's Ms Hunt putting forward others' views. I actually meant my comment to refer to the Union as a whole rather than Sally Hunt in particular, but I can see how it might come across another way. What I was trying to get acoss is that the whole pay bargaining position has had a detrimental impact on the way the Union is perceived as it harder to take their statements at face value. I certainly wouldn't lay the blame for that at one person's door. In any case, what I was trying to ascertain is the context and the rationale for the job cuts. Frankly, I'm surprised that Medicine is suffering instead of other subject areas at Imperial, altough perhaps they are next on the list? I would also suggest that the current situation is perhaps the natural product of the moves towards a hybrid European/American HE system, based on a free market model with privatised Universities, astronomical student fees and a focus on 'skills'. The current financial crisis is simply likely to accelerate this process. As to the question of why Universities aren't being bailed out, the answer is probably that Universities haven't really all gone to the wall yet. The one that is seen to have done so is London Met which itself sparked a debate about whether it should be allowed to fail as an example. The impression I get is that the governent is frustrated by the perceived resistance to change in the sector and an inability of Universities to manage their own affairs. Please note that I'm not saying I agree, just trying to set out a possible explanation. Does that mean we're in crisis? Possibly. I think we'll only really know after the event. The key question is what form of HE will come out the other side and will it be something that the majority of staff, whether academic or administrative, wish to be associated with?

The number of 80 is definitely real and this represents 80 academics out of a total of 370 faculty staff mainly senior lecturers and above. So a fifth of the faculty of medicine, which is made up of non clinical and clinical academics. However the Faculty of Medicine may need to downgrade its target redundancy numbers in the light of the adverse responses it is receiving. It is unclear how Imperial intends to deliver a medical curriculum let alone research in the future if it loses that many staff; it also runs a hospital.

Reductions in RAE scores can probably be put down to the retirement of individuals, especially at the Hammersmith Hospital, which is not the powerhous it once was. Paradoxically, some of those trained there are now surpassing their old institution at places like Kings College and University College.

An alternative explanation for these job cuts at Imperial - they have nothing to do with financial difficulties or the RAE. This is the 4th restructuring round of job cuts at the Faculty of Medicine in just the last 10 years. This is just 'business as usual' at 'Imperial plc' and is work-force engineering plain and simple. Finance and the RAE are the excuse NOT the reason.