Sir Roy Anderson steps down as Imperial rector

Ta ta! http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=406784

There is clearly more to this 'resignation' than that reported here. The clue lies in Anderson's previous 'resignations' and the fact that his management was criticised. Imperial College has suffered in the same way, particularly the Humanities Department where a disproportionate burden of cuts has been borne by languages. The irrational decision to scrap the teaching of Arabic and to force Japanes and Russian to seek private funding defies all logic when there is a huge demand for these languages from Imperial students. Undergraduate needs and protests have brushed aside by an autocratic and backward looking minority with no understanding of the College's long-standing commitment to teach Humanities.

What I don't understand is how a guy like this can become a "Sir?" Do they really reward failure and bad behavior in this country? Perhaps the Krays could receive posthumous knighthoods, then? Although they were perhaps a bit too successful to earn that title.

Academics deciding to "spend more time on research" is transparent PR speak identical in all respects to that of politicians who intend to "spend more time with their family." Go figure.

What I don't understand is how a guy like this can become a "Sir?" , writes Dr Howard Fredrics. >>>>>>>>.. Say what you will of the UK, but we are top of the league when it comes to irony. And besides, he's into privatisation, always a winner with any political party these days.

For months the Times Higher was full of tales of woe from post-92s - VCs resigning, non-completion audits etc. Now, it's the pre-92s in real strife with big job losses - Leeds, Birmingham, Imperial. Who said the post-92s were the problem, eh?

I am surprised that he lasted so long. More of the top people at Imperial should think about their positions in light of the axing of as much as 30% of their medical faculty. (So much for the government's promotion of a science -based economy). The management over-expanded too quickly, thought that they were better than they really were in RAE terms, and now the hard working and successful faculty are paying for the consequences. What is very scary is that other universities think the Imperial model is something to which they would quite like to aspire.

Sir Roy's tenure at the helm of Imperial was a national disgrace - he is clearly not suited to institutional leadership. His strength as he (only now!) has recognised is in his discipline. This is yet another saga of an academic thinking that 200 publications and a £1m grant make them great managers and leaders. Not so, as can be evidenced by Sir Roy's example and the majority of the current crop of VCs.

@Dr Howard Fredrics: His Knighthood was awarded even before he came to Imperial College. The following is from Wiki: "He was knighted in the 2006 Queen's Birthday Honours list. Anderson succeeded Richard Sykes as the 14th Rector of Imperial College on July 1, 2008" He was knighted for his scientific achievement which is not a failure. He may not be a favourite with some Socialist Americans and those with leftist inclinations. His Rectorship at Imperial may not be successful , but to his credit he is leaving probably recognising his management inadequacies. But he is still one of the most distinguished scientists in this country. Your comparison of him to Krays shows your mindset and not surprised that you get into difficulties. If you do not know why comment the way you do? American academics never understood this country even after spending decades here. You are not the only one. I know a few like you.

Dr Fredrics does seem to run his mouth quite a bit. No need to blame it on his being American, and perhaps Anderson doesn't deserve defending -- but this is at least the second time our friend Dr Frederics has gone off the rails in recent comments (the other being Birmingham sociology).

Sir this Sir that..... just incompetent with inflated opinions of themselves. Nice to see the Russell Group getting to face budget cuts...their RAE results were not that special and they act as though they are something special.

@ the last poster. You must be in a very sad place if you can take such delight at the misfortune of others

Whichever way you look at it, senior management at Imperial are a bunch of .... (please insert perjorative descriptor). But then, academic management is notorious for its petty-mindedness, irrationality and self-servility (does that exist as a word?).

I don't think you have to be pro- or anti-American, or indeed pro- or anti- anything, to question whether the British honours system really helps public and private institutions. There's always a risk that senior figures will be more concerned with securing the knighthood than advancing the institution.Sometimes the two coincide, sometimes they don't. A further question is whether scientific success (with or without the knighthood) implies managerial competence. Not always, but do we want to be run by managers or by scientists?

Imperial had Sykes, a businessman and arguably unpopular throughout his tenure. Then we had Anderson, a scientist, and now seemingly unpopular throughout his, albeit short, tenure. I don't think it's a matter of scientist or managers. Yes, their grounding of their disciplines are important, alongside their past experience in the relevant industries to an specialist institution like Imperial. However, I reckon it is down to the individual, their personality and their ideas they bring to a top job like this. Like Anderson before, I think Imperial would do well to recruit from the inside for the next permanent Rector; Anderson doesn't support my case though.

Sykes and Anderson, successive Rectors, appear to have diminished the reputation and influence of Imperial. Sykes was involved in the closure of Wye Agricultural College (part of Imperial) and plans to develop part of the surrounding ANOB (read "Saved" by David Hewson). Anderson has also presided over cuts that have affected the nature and role of the university in the wider community. Perhaps the Imperial "vision" needs to be refocussed to meet the needs of its students rather than the ambitions of its Rectors.

As someone who actually works at Imperial I am amazed by many of the comments. Sir Roy is very widely perceived among the faculty as being a superb Rector who has done a great deal in a short period. His style is also open and he welcomes and listens to criticism - very different to the previous Rector where criticism was close to a suicidal act. Sir Roy was not responsible for cuts in the Medical Faculty - those types of decision are devolved to Faculty Principals and the blame is on their heads. Where these stories of Sir Roy being unpopular comes from I do not know - just ask around the faculty and you will get a very different viewpoint - of course he had to make some tough decisions due to the financial situation and some will be upset by these but he hardly had much option if Imperial is to stay solvent.

There seems to be a lot of opinion but little fact on this site. Contrary to some of the comments from other contributors, George is right to say that it was up to the Faculties to decide how to effect the necessary cuts agreed by Imperial's management board. These were necessary to prevent major problems and job cuts in future years. I have also heard from a reliable souce that Sir Roy personally intervened to reduce the number of staff affected in Medicine so it is rather ironic that he is taking the blame for the job cuts.

Indeed lots of comments but few knowledge about the reality. Anderson is not responsible neitherfor the cuts in the medical faculty staff nor for the deletion of some languages, it is actually suggested that he resigned to distance himself from these measures.

The big surprise was that someone investigated twice for financial impropriety, forced to step down for libelling a senior colleague, and little senior academic management experience was chosen in the first place. This was all well known and reported in THES at the time of his appointment. Imperial likes to idea of appointing a knight, that's all there is to it. Much more experienced and academically accomplished candidates were turned down due the Imperial's desire to have a knighted boss' serves the idiots who chose him right; will they now step down form their positions of influence and admit they may a huge mistake. not likely

@Ex-Imperial It is very easy to comment the way you have done. We also do not know why you became Ex-Imperial. It appears that you have personal axe to grind vis-avis imperial. I do not work in Imperial and did not study there. He was a Chief Scientist to the government and that is the highest position a scientist can reach. Every one besides you are idiots, you say. To be fair he resigned and not kicked out like Brian Roper the VC of that disgraced institution. He did nothing like what Roper did. Once you became Ex-Imperial just move on.