Breaking news: According to media reports this morning, the Higher Education Funding Council for England has written to the chairman of governors at London Met calling on members of the governing body and senior staff to “consider their position”.
Skip to [ Story Content and jump story attachments ]
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Main Page Content:
Roper is to blame for fiasco, but London Met’s board bears responsibility
20 November 2009
Report into overpayments to university finds top officials were aware of problems but took no action. Rebecca Attwood reports
Brian Roper, the former vice-chancellor of London Metropolitan University, presided over a dictatorial management regime and must take “the major responsibility and culpability” for the fact that the university has been forced to hand back tens of millions of pounds in cash.
That is the conclusion of a review by Sir David Melville, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Kent, commissioned by London Met to investigate how the university came to massively overclaim from the Higher Education Funding Council for England after submitting inaccurate data about its students.
But despite not being fully informed of the scale of the problems, the university’s board of governors and audit committee had an oversight role, which makes them ultimately “accountable for a financial failure of this magnitude” and means that they “must take overall responsibility”, Sir David’s report says.
The review, obtained by Times Higher Education, which follows an earlier report into the affair commissioned by Hefce, found that Mr Roper and some members of the executive were fully aware that the university was applying its own definition of funding rules on student dropouts – rather than the funding council’s – as far back as 2003, but took no action.
When the scale of the data problems was finally picked up, the university was forced to hand back £36.5 million overpaid to it by Hefce between 2005-06 and 2007-08.
The university’s recurrent grant has also been reduced by £15 million, leaving the university facing financial difficulties and putting hundreds of jobs at risk.
Under the Hefce funding rule – which has since been changed – a university received funding for a student place only if the student in question sat all their exams at the first opportunity or completed their assessments for the year.
But London Met applied its own rule, based on successful progression of the student from one year of study to the next.
The discrepancy was huge. The university’s method resulted in a non-completion rate of 3 per cent compared with Hefce’s 30 per cent.
Sir David acknowledges that Hefce’s funding rule on completion was “controversial”. He says there was “widespread belief” in the sector until 2004 that the rule was impractical and not applicable in its literal sense to universities with modular degree schemes, particularly universities “with a strong widening-participation ethos”.
There was an anecdotal belief that Hefce did not apply the rule literally and that there was “leeway” in the way institutions might interpret their returns in the light of their own academic regulations on progression, he says.
However, Hefce was taking a literal approach to the rule in audits circulated in the sector from 2004, and many universities changed their regulations in response.
Sir David says it is “beyond dispute” that Mr Roper, who left London Met in March, was fully aware of the existence of the Hefce funding rule and its potential consequences from September 2003 or earlier.
There is clear email evidence that “third-tier officers” responsible for the area tried to warn the vice-chancellor and most members of the executive that, if Hefce applied its definition literally, the result would be “disastrous” for London Met. There is no record of a response to such warnings.
Mr Roper has confirmed that he saw no reason for the university to change its practice because he firmly believed that Hefce was not applying its funding completion rule in a literal sense and that London Met’s approach was valid, Sir David’s report says.
“It appears that he took it upon himself to make this decision, and it is clear that he was not challenged in this by his executive group colleagues. In this respect, he was out of step with the actions of other vice-chancellors in the sector as they became aware of this issue in 2004… This is a clear failure of senior management in the institution,” the report states.
Meanwhile, Mr Roper, the university secretary and members of the executive group failed to present clearly the risks to the board of governors or board committees.
Although the director of finance brought up the completion rule during a presentation to the board of governors in October 2005, the issue was a single bullet point in a large presentation and was “delivered without particular emphasis”.
It was, however, clear that the more general issues of high dropout rates and poor data returns in Hefce audits were brought to the attention of the audit committee and board of governors “at an early stage” but they did not follow this up.
The audit committee “appears to have failed to consider” Hefce’s Higher Education Students Early Statistics Survey 03 and 05 audit reports, or to have given “proper attention” to the detailed conclusions of other Hefce reports, the review finds.
“It must be the case that the board of governors and the audit committee should take their share of corporate responsibility for a failure of this magnitude regardless of the detail of information provided by the executive,” Sir David concludes.
He adds: “Vice-chancellors are often charismatic leaders, and the case of LMU is no exception. While it is important that they are allowed to manage, it is incumbent upon boards of governors to provide sufficient and effective challenge. In the light of what is now known about the management of LMU during this period as well as the disregard for funding council rules, I can only conclude that this challenge and supervision by the board of governors in general was inadequate.”
Sir David writes that he has received more than 50 submissions from staff, mainly academics, who universally expressed lack of surprise at the events that unfolded.
“They attest to problems of student-data quality for internal use over many years and provide many detailed examples of the difficulty of removing students from the record whom they know to have left or who never appeared,” he says.
“They generally describe a highly centralised and dictatorial executive led by the vice-chancellor, which was incapable of listening to what was going on in the university, discouraged or ignored criticism and made decisions without consultation.”
However, to see all the executive in the same light may “be unfair to particular individuals”, Sir David acknowledges.
He adds that there is “much evidence” that the prevailing style of management led to a “silo” approach that allowed little collective discussion.
“It must however be the case that they [the executive] share collective and in some cases line-management responsibility for the failings in relation to data quality,” he concludes.
Other universities have fallen foul of the funding rule, but not on the same scale.
Sir David says Hefce might have discovered the problems at London Met earlier if it had been quicker to investigate in more detail the “lack of credibility” in student data identified during Hefce audits from 2003, while the funding council’s initial lack of clarity on the rule “may have contributed to LMU’s position”.
The report adds that the university appears not to have been interrogated on how it defined funding eligibility during these audits.
“I am not aware of any other crucial funding rule that has been so difficult to apply and/or clarify and has had such a wide-ranging effect on so many institutions,” Sir David says.
“Hefce therefore bears some responsibility for this, but this does not detract from the singularity of the responsibility of LMU.”
In a statement, London Met says Sir David’s report is coupled with an independent review carried out by Deloitte into the circumstances of Hefce’s clawback of funds.
The reports were presented to the board of governors on 18 November. They are due to be published next week.
The university says the Deloitte report, which is still in the final draft stage, “is critical, and the board acknowledged those criticisms”, adding that its recommendations will be considered by the board next month when the report is finalised.
London Met says the points raised by Sir David’s report, “particularly about perceptions of the management style and the relationship between the executive and the board… provide London Met with important lessons, which will also be discussed at length by the board of governors. All the recommendations will also be the subject of full response and proposed action.”
The university adds that it wants to draw a line under the clawback issues “to allow both Hefce and London Met to proceed with their much more important tasks”.
And it says that it is confident that, following this week’s appointment of Malcolm Gillies, the former vice-chancellor of City University London, as its new vice-chancellor, it would now be able to “renew our focus on our students and their education”.
rebecca.attwood@tsleducation.com
Update- 23/11/2009
-
Readers' comments
Those named should do the decent thing and resign, although having worked with the individuals concerned for many years I've seen little evidence of a single ounce of decency among any of them. Furthermore the so-called 'performance related' bonuses paid the executive and their immediate subordinates since 2003 should be recovered, through the courts if necessary, as these bonuses were paid out on the basis of knowingly falsified data-returns to the funding council in what was a effectively a multi-million pound fraud. Although I welcome the appointment of Professor Gillies as Vice-Chancellor, there can be no fresh start for London Met while those senior managers, and Governors, who pandered to Roper (and financially profited from his deceit) remain in post. The university's hard working students and staff, of whom there are many, deserve and demand nothing less.
Roper is *still* collecting his salary, if earlier reports are to be believed.
Finally the Exec Group and Board of Governors of LondonMet have got the writing on the wall and must start updating their CVs. The staff and students at London Met value this institution highly and want it to succeed. Those at the top must step down and let us get on with our work to turn it round ... Staff here are Deloitted to see this report :)
I'm sure with 3 V-C's on the payroll LMU can be finally turned around!! The challenge is considerable and change needs to be significant and far reaching. We wish all of the staff every success and hope that the future for staff and students can be turned around. Lets wish LMU its "supportive & dilligent staff" and students all the best for a new era.
Interesting to read London Met's response "The university adds that it wants to draw a line under the clawback issues “to allow both Hefce and London Met to proceed with their much more important tasks”. Which means 'noted and we have made a new VC appointment' and the new VC afraid of being sacked again will follow what the chair of governors and the governing body says. As for the senior managers, business as usual as the 'lessons were learnt and a lamb (Roper) was sacrificed'. No one is going to step down. Tories will take power next year and it will interesting then to see how many new universities in London will be nudged to merge.
The saga of London Met is not over. The THE journalists have plenty to investigate and report. We can be assured that this university will be making the news for years to come-the wrong kind.
In response to the comment by 'Not Copernicus" that LMet will be making "the wrong kind" of news for years to come, I have some sad news for you, mate: there isn't any wrong kind of news; it doesn't actually exist; how many times must we tell you: the only bad news is NO NEWS!!!
Melville refers to the 50 submissions from staff? - mostly academics? - that'll be our fluffy UCU colleagues. The Perfect Ones. They're so good at teaching the drop-out rate was next to nothing. They did nothing wrong. They put students first. They didn't go on strke - ever...they only ever put the institution first - not their cast-iron ideologies. God help us now if they think they've won the day...
'Jesus', perhaps this is the expected conclusion of a fully independent report - one that had unlimited access to all the university records and interviewed all of the major stakeholders, that encouraged those such as you to decry the very idea of an independent inquiry in the first place! Why rely on evidence when you can just resort to slander and innuendo, especially when that evidence (as in this case) is likely to point in a diametrically opposite conclusion to the one you have been pushing?
Evidence? What evidence? I agree with 'Jesus'
Dishonesty is only one of the failings at London Met (formerlu UNL). Managers have deliberately set low standards in some areas in order to earn fee income. An example is the UNL MBA programme. A member of staff wrote his own book and sold it to students. It was published by a "shed down a country lane" publisher. It was the most hideous nonsense ever seen in a text book. It seems many students did not realise they were being duped. They were not very bright (which I know to be true, having met and taught some) One MBA student(who now teaches on the MBA programme!) wrote that she thought the book good (not verbatim but not misleading). The lecturer received support from management (Roper was made fully aware of the incompetence of the lecturer by me and others.). Fawcett was fully aware. Blewett (now retired) was fully aware. The author of the book has since been promoted. He is utterly incompetent (and THES has seen statements from independent reviewers of his books). UNL was academically corrupt. It seems London Met. has been no better.
London Met serves a useful purpose. I work at a vaguely mediocre university -- but at least I'm not at London Met! *Someone* has to be at the bottom...
I was one of many admin staff who had to deal with student retention numbers, and who complained many times to Senior Management that the numbers we were being told to use were a grossly over-exaggerated figure. The student admissions procedure was changed in 2003 so that instead of all students enrolling at LMU being counted, it became the rule that all students who applied were counted. This resulted in thousands of spurious student records of students who never even enrolled, being included in the student record system. We complained about this many times but were always told by management to just 'deal with it'.. There is little doubt that pressure was being put in place by Senior Management and the Exec Group, to not question the student numbers.
'Inspector Morse', given the conclusion and recommendations of the Melville Report in regard to the culpability of the Executive Group and Governors for the financial mess at London Met, it is worth pondering how the inquiry, and Sir David Melville, were introduced to London Met staff by the Governors and EG when the inquiry was initiated on July 10th 2009. I think this is worth doing now as I have a horrible feeling those same individuals will now try to traduce Sir David, and his conclusions, because he didn't present the 'whitewash' they were hoping for: '10 July 2009, Independent Review Dear Colleague, I am writing to let you know that the Board of Governors has appointed Sir David Melville to assist and advise a review by Deloitte of the circumstances leading to the submission of non-compliant student data returns and the associated funding reduction. Sir David will report on findings later this year, including any governance or other lessons to be learned. Sir David, who is currently Chair of Lifelong Learning UK, has a wealth of experience in Higher Education: he was Vice-Chancellor of the University of Kent until 2007; was Chief Executive of the Further Education Funding Council, and before that Vice-Chancellor of Middlesex University and Vice-Chair of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (now UUK) and Chair of its Longer Term Strategy Committee. He has been Chair of the Higher Education Statistics Agency, the University Vocational Awards Council, the Kent and Medway Learning and Skills Council and Higher Education South East. Sir David was awarded a CBE in 2001 and a KBE in 2007 for services to further and higher education. Deloitte is one of the leading professional services firms in the Higher Education sector. The team who will be working on the review have many years of experience on audit and advisory work within the sector and in particular of data quality and governance reviews. The Board will ensure that every assistance is provided to Sir David and Deloitte, including access to all necessary people and paperwork, to enable them to carry out a thorough and robust review. Peter Anwyl, Chairman of the Board of Governors'
I'm just waiting for Dr. Truth to turn up and tell us all that this proves that we should close all non-Russell Group universities.
Some one is producing Sir David Melville's CV which is not an issue now! What Geoff Hodges says was heard before. That was what this place was before and still is. Nothing will ever change. I still agree with Jesus.. Should lookforward to Tories in power. To John: not all non-Russell unis but only those mired in scandal.
I've heard Mr Roper speak on a number of a occasions and am convinced he truly believed in widening participation. That said I'm naive in the extreme and by my own omission an appalling judge of character. Mr Roper is an impressive speaker and an imposing character. The Exec & the Board however have clearly not challenged his decision or have been complicit in them. It is clear from public documents (see HEFCE website and Melville Report hopefully to follow in full) they were fully aware of HEFCE's rulings on completions. However impractical the definitions, particularly for organisations committed to widening participation other V-C's towed the line for the good and security of their institutions. That said where has all the money gone. Is this down to LMU's refusal to enter into any national framework agreement, antiquated pay evaluations methodologies, an inconsistent approach to the allocation of teaching hours and payment to name but a few. Much has been said of an autocratic silo approach of the senior team. But there has been a severe lack of central control on the things that matter, finance and how teaching is allocated fairly and performance managed. This needs more than a super V-C, we need Alan Sugar on viagra to sort this mess.
"we need Alan Sugar on viagra" to do what?!!! The oldman on viagra has one purpose only!!! Roper tried to service a very large staff base, i.e to keep them in jobs with not enough physical students, and hence what 'Geoff Hodges' says is believable. What will Gillies do if he discovers that the actual number of students is less than what the record holds, and that the staff on payroll are excess to the requirement? The story will run and run.
'Inspector Morse', the point being that Melville found real evidence (and he was experienced and knowledgeable enough to not rely solely on anecdotal information, but rather on cold hard facts) of serious, and systemic, failures of Governance and of the style and approach of senior management, and identifies a good number of specific culpable individuals amongst those groups. There is no blame whatsoever aimed at frontline staff (as you seem to assert should be the case) as there was no evidence to back up such claims. There is however concern expressed about the top-down, dictatorial style of management (that the staff unions have complained about for years - so yes, they have every right to feel vindicated by this report) that helped to create the mess in the first place, and more importantly ensured that there were insufficient checks and balances in place to provide for executive/governor accountability. Indeed, Melville praises the hardworking front-line staff that have had to put up with this lousy state of affairs for years. Therefore, perhaps, the first step that Prof Gillies should take on arrival (other than ensuring those named as culpable are asked to leave if they have not done so already) should be to re-establish a proper Academic Board with actual academic representatives on it - not just the Heads/Deans of Faculty (who owe their position to the Executive Group and have proved their inability to be critical of management dictat throughout this sorry episode), and then set about the establishment of a proper set of elected department/faculty staff councils. Through which any wheeze of management is subject to genuine, and critical, review. For example, we now hear rumours that because too few students are successful on our 8 per/year (15 credit) modules, courses are going to be restructured into 6 per/year (20 credit) modules - this, apparently, on the basis of supposedly achieving a better success rate by students having fewer modules to fail (I kid you not - one wag has even suggested that we ensure a 100% success rate by having only 1 module with 100% of its mark awarded for being registered on it - not even a need to turn up as it would be conducted via WebLearn!). This dangerous suggestion is precisely the sort of nonsense that requires proper formal staff structures in place before it suddenly pops up as an 'agreed' policy change (as is the way with most such changes since merger). As Melville alludes to, we need a radical change of direction at London Met. One that values academia, students, academics, and support-staff. Not one, that keeps looking for the quick fix lowest common denominator that simply masks, or postpones, the real underlying problems that we face.
The old man on viagra needs an AK 47 to deal with what is reported to be significant overstaffing. AWAMs need to be agreed and enforced. Student records, financial, procurement and HR management systems are separately maintained an inefficient. This needs sorting. Governance at ever level needs to be simplified and correctly maintained. University Management has not engaged pro-actively with the unions and vice-versa. A new face is needed to re-engage with the unions, UCU seem to respect Gillies stance at City, lets hope he also can build bridges at HEFCE too. I don't think the senior team will go, if they did who long would it take to replace them and at what cost. The institution has serious problems, an analysis of the organisation and what is salvaged needs to be conducted post-haste, and tough decisions made.
Before the grammar police get me - apologies for my poor grammar above. My big monkey hands and predictive text gets the better of me some times.
"There is clear email evidence that “third-tier officers” responsible for the area tried to warn the vice-chancellor and most members of the executive that, if Hefce applied its definition literally, the result would be “disastrous” for London Met. There is no record of a response to such warnings." This is pretty damning, if true. But the deliberate "three monkeys" management approach is by no means unique.
As ever you monkeys have missed the point.If you want to understand this issue you need to enquire of HEFCE,Who designed the Funding Method ?Who audited it?Who is Tw-t,,who Jimmy Greaves,W(ITHER)BARNEY.?
Yep Exduco - HEFCE had emerged from this unscathed. I wonder why. And to the Innocents - no job losses as a result of merger - that was Roper's mistake. He should've reduced the university at that point. No mention of the former VC either - no culpability on his part - the Sir Roderick Floud legacy.
Yep Exduco - HEFCE had emerged from this unscathed. I wonder why. And to the Innocents - no job losses as a result of merger - that was Roper's mistake. He should've reduced the university at that point. No mention of the former VC either - no culpability on his part - the Sir Roderick Floud legacy.
Thanks Herbert. I knew we served some purpose. I know we're at the 'bottom' but at least we're looking at the stars - Prof Gillies step forth! London Met, for all its failings, thinks BIG.
@Herbert Well said. Good luck to your institution. You all should make sure that your institution does not expand willy nilly. London Met's problems will be more than halved if its size is cut to half with students who are active. Thinking BIG? That has been the problem! Gillies will realise this.
BIG ideas - not numbers.
You sound like you're looking forward to a Tory victory - why so that you can get rid of the upstart unis. Good thinking Tory Boy/Girl - the peasants are more palatable when they're kept in blissful ignorance
You sound like you're looking forward to a Tory victory - why so that you can get rid of the upstart unis. Good thinking Tory Boy/Girl - the peasants are more palatable when they're kept in blissful ignorance
Elementary my dear post-92 academic? Unless you are in hibernation all these months. you would have noticed that the polls are predicting just that. Not surprised about your ignorance at all or an unlikely wish that a Socialist party will win( even Labour ditched this word) and keep you in your job for life? No use in blaming you, a post-92 generates delusion of sorts!!
Now that the problems have been blamed on the previous VC Bryan Roper for poor management it is good to see that the LMU Board of Governors have learned their lesson and appointed a new VC Prof Gillies who was effectively sacked by the City Uni Board of Governors for 'er poor management. What was that about dogs returning to their vomit?
Morse, you're an elitist snob. I'm a Labour supporter but not of the Militant variety - far from it. I don't want a job for life - I earn my way -it's called hard work - over 50 hours a week I'd say and I'm not the only one and , unbelievably, we work for London Met. Amazing isn't it. Say what you like Tory Boy/Girl. Us post '92s serve society better than the Russell Establishment!
So we belong to that party of Bliar and Lord Sleaze Mandelson both of them had Oxbridge education, millionnaires ( by sucking the poor) and not elitist? London Met has full of people like you I heard and no wonder it is at the bottomn of the pile. By the way, Did you know Bliar has become a property developer, worth 20 million in the last count? We all work more than you, but do not fleece the HEFCE. Yes, London Met serves those who enter hte country and become illegal immigrants. Start counting down your time because Gillies is eliticist never worked a post-92.
'To Melvilled', I wouldn't worry about 'Morse' and his ilk, they simply substitute invective for analysis, groundless supposition for facts, argued that an independent inquiry would prove nothing, and then ignore the evidence-based proof when presented. They have an agenda - to attack the very concept of post-92 universities (and those that work in them) and the idea of a widening participation higher education environment, and they aren't going to let any grounded, rational, and thought-provoking ideas get in the way of that agenda. If they were to stick to facts of this case they would be silent. As they do not, and unfortunately, are not, they are best ignored.
Evidence-based Conclusions: couldn't agree more.! The million dollar (or should that be fifty-six million pound) question is what action will now be taken on the basis of the evidence. Lets hope its positive, swift and decisive. Staff and students have waited long enough already.
Evidence-based Conclusions = Tough Call. Gillies will do nothing. He does not want to be sacked again!!!!
As Oliver Cromwell said: “You have sat for too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”
But what happened to Oliver Cromwell's head? The utterance should be ' Ye academics you have sat for too long for any good you have been doing, Depart, we the tax payers say, and let us have done with you, in the name of God, go, here is the paper to sign!"
Gillies will have been given a free reign by HEFCE and BIS to remove the culprits at any cost, to think otherwise is naive. They will be lucky to last until Christmas. I think the staff will be pleasantly surprised.
"Gillies will have been given a free reign by HEFCE and BIS to remove the culprits at any cost" That could be half-of the Met staff as Roper took the blame. It will be cheaper for HEFCE to close the place or merge it with another Uni like LSBU. Tough Calling is It? nice quote you have, nearer to the truth
http://gaddbiwdftapglkq.onion/leak/lmu-student-records-audit.pdf
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Suppressed_London_Metropolitan_University_student_records_audit,_2009
They can always join AA (Academophobics Anonymous) except its not.
No one's heard of you. It's very easy in the Land of Blog to assert something. It stays out there as if it's the truth. You do not exist blog-fiend. You are another one jumping on the bandwagon for your own malicious reasons. Slander is very serious and can hurt people. Pinch yourself next time before you put finger to keyboard.
'Tough calling is it?': you think (or perhaps hope) Prof Gillies will do nothing? I think you probably also hoped that the independent inquiry wouldn't take place? And when it did, you hoped that the evidence it unearthed might be buried? Well, I suppose we all have to have something to hope for. Given your own particular aspirations, however, I'm making a wild guess that you might be in for yet another disappointment. Early indications are that Prof. Gillies will be more than up to the challenges ahead. Certainly, there do appear to be grounds for cautious optimism. My own hope is that 'Caesar' is right...
The students’ at London Met would quite like to know when we will get our copy of the Melville report so we can see the facts ourselves. It might be nice if LMU gave a copy to the Student Council so we don't have to wait for it to be published online (we won’t hold our breath). Why tell the Students? When I asked the head of Student Services for a statement from management to address student concerns, one of the things said was ‘if the students are not bothered, why bother them?’ well maybe because it’s our right! But hay, if we don’t know we have rights, why tell us? And just out of interest I wonder what Roper would say if I told him I didn’t think the new increased fees were literal? Ropers alleged misunderstanding contradicts what I was told by the head of SS about an ongoing disputed with Hefce. Will we ever get the truth?
It's all very well to put the blame on Roper. But now that he's gone let us not allow him to be the total scapegoat. The Board of Governors have as much responsibility for what was going on. Roper had the Chair of the BoG firmly in his pocket, and all the governors were incompetent and failed in their duty to oversee the university's business adequately. And this is the same BoG who will oversee the new VC? LMU needs a completely new BoG just as badly as it needs a new VC.
I can vouch for what Geoff Hodges says is the truth. For at least 4 years, there has been a dedicated IT team responsible for "Identity Management" of all staff & students. That is, identifying all staff & student with correct up-to-date details, taken from the SITS & HR system. After 4 years, the situation is that this "Identity Management" team still have no idea how to link the information between the systems, have no idea how to get current data from the SITS or HR systems, and have no clue how to find out how many currect active students there are. The IT dept is woefully incompetent in many areas, and is just as guilty of collusion with the Exec Group in perpetuating the continued use of faulty data. If a dedicated IT "Identity Management" team is so incompetent that is still cannot even do the basic responsibility of it's existence, what good is it at all?
To "SYSS Staff": You say they "have no idea how to get current data from the SITS or HR systems, and have no clue how to find out how many currect active students there are." but are you so sure the SITS system has accurate data in it to begin with? Isn't there an old IT maxiom that goes "Garbage In Garbage Out"? Although I do agree that a team with the dedicated responsibility of Identity Management should at least be able to do what it's name implies. To be honest, the whole management of data from start to finish sounds totally incompetent.
"After 4 years, the situation is that this "Identity Management" team still have no idea how to link the information between the systems, have no idea how to get current data from the SITS or HR systems, and have no clue how to find out how many currect active students there are" You are absolutelly right. The key words are 'active students'. The first job for the new VC will be to determine the number of 'active students'. Many of us know that it will be significantly less than the paper number. This has implications. It will be of no surprise that for the actual number of students , the staff left will be far in excess, i.e. there is overstaffing. Then what will the new VC do? If he recommends the reduction of staff, the UCU will shout for sacking of the new VC! BOG should be looking for another replacement for the new VC next year?
"The first job for the new VC will be to determine the number of 'active students'." Yes, but how? He's not going to personally stand at the door counting peope going through the turnstiles, is he? He'll only have the same resources available as previously available. Link the turnstiles with the ID cards, link to the computer system. That will count which students are attending in person. Link the IT network logins with SITS to see which students are logging in to the network, and which courses they are enrolled. Cross-check that with the course tutors register of students. So why is this not being done already? Why is the "Identity Management" team not able to do this simple basic procedure after 4 years?
The Melville Report hasn't been made public yet - only leaked. It'll be in the public domain soon and you'll have the same access to it as the rest of us.
You ask many uncomfortable questions, which are excellent! The simple answer is to keep a paper figure of say 32,000+ which helped among other things to keep a large number of staff in jobs. Roper et al. got the performance bonus as are other heads of departments albeit less but definitely 5 figure sums. If the ID management team does what you have suggested on the orders of the new VC and report say an active student number of about 21,000 ( which many feel is about right) , significant reductions have to be made in the staffing number, more than what was suggested consequent to clawback. Then what happens?
I suggest you forget about the Melville Report, study hard , get good grades and get out fast, and go as far away as possible from the location. That is what I am going to do-get out in May and go to another Uni , better Uni.
Then what happens? The university & its Senior Management regain some integrity & credibility, and the superfluous deadwood is got rid of, to create a lean healthy & economically viable learning institution which is working within its remit. As opposed to the bloated, corrupt, inefficient, incompetent wreck that it currently is.
Is this true? For 4 years the IT dept has had a dedicated Identity Management Team that is responsible for managing the correct identitiies of all staff & students? And in all this time they've done nothing about even finding out how many real students are at LMU? And that is why LMU have got away with claiming the wrong funding from HEFCE? And that is why LMU are now in so much trouble? All because this Identity Management Team are incompetent and unable to do their job?
You have my vote! But will the UCU swallow what you suggest? What if superfluous deadwood becomes a mountain? It might mean a leaner institution with a single campus, and London Met will be a brand name. Despite the threat of strike, the new VC doing what you suggest will no doubt attract much outside support..
It's a little more complicated than that, but basically yes. The SYSS Identity Management Team are supposed to get the correct data of current active staff & students from HR & SITS, but are still somehow unable to even do this after 4 years and just blame the HR dept & Student Records dept for the lack of data. It's all a complete fiasco. One incompetent inept dept blaming another incompetent inept dept, and nobody is doing anything about getting the issues sorted out. It's a fiasco that has been allowed to continue unchallenged for 4 years now, and has allowed incompetent inept staff to remain in their jobs, bluffing their way from day to day.
@SYSS Staff Some post-92s have tried what you say blaming incompetence and left and right hands not aware of each other etc.. etc.. although he real intentions were to bloat the student number. Active staff can be quickly identifed through pay roll records ( staff don't work for free). But the scale of the 'bloat' has been modest until London Met showed what the size could be! Some universities have a procedure where students not attending 2 consecutive lectures ( attendance taken strictly) are interviewed and if they do not show up for the interview, are given a futher chance and if they do not appear withdrawn from the course. Oveseas non-EU students are treated similarly and Home Office informed. Why LondonMet failed to do this? We know the answer.
"....The SYSS Identity Management Team are supposed to get the correct data of current active staff & students from HR & SITS, but are still somehow unable to even do this after 4 years...." Then what have they been doing for the past 4 years? If they cant even do this what is the point of their job? This seems a big problem at londonmet. Too many people unable to do their jobs and as you say "...incompetent inept staff remain in their jobs, bluffing their way from day to day...."
...why records for so many absent students were left hanging around on various IT systems for years and years when it was clear they were gone for good, in many cases only ever been around for a couple of weeks. What many won't be aware of is that the person responsible for so-called Identity Management in systems and services was known to socialise with the disgraced former vice-chancellor. Could this be relevant? I leave that for others to decide. But what is clear from the Melville Report and the leaked student records audit is that what happened at LMU could not have been perpetrated by one man alone and required the collusion of senior staff in the academic registry, undergraduate offices, systems and services, as well as the executive - many of whom are also known to have enjoyed the the former vice-chancellor's hospitality on a frequent basis - and many of whom have been loudly pleading the Nuremberg defence since February - and will no doubt be doing so again, in ever shriller voices, now Melville's findings are out in the open. Corruption is an ugly word, but anyone who thinks with the appointment of a new vice-chancellor this sorry story is over might do well to think again.
Another big part of the problem as demonstrated above, is that too many inept staff are in their jobs because of a system of patronage & sycophancy, rather than any ability & merit. LMU would be well served by a mass clearout of all the deadwood, and then recruit more professional & competent staff where necessary.
"what happened at LMU could not have been perpetrated by one man alone and required the collusion of senior staff in the academic registry, undergraduate offices, systems and services, as well as the executive" Very conveniently other academic staff senior + junior + departmental staff who contributed to this deliberate attempt to fleece the HEFCE are left out. The Nuremberg trial established that 'merely following orders' won't do. What can a new VC do? He should sack the lot, a'mass clear out of all' as the only deadwood are left and others have gone.
What happened to Alf Morris? What has Morris accomplished since being the interim VC?
What has Morris accomplished since being the interim VC? Well, for one thing (and I can only think of the one) he's pocketed about £200k without being asked much in return. Nice work if you can get it.
He achieved next to nothing! Ofcourse collected the dosh, let the others do the dirty work of demanding and getting to agree on VRs. Meanwhile Roper in the background has been collecting his dosh too! No one should be surprised if Morris becomes some kind of adviser to the New VC, when he assumes office!!
To the keyboard warriors who once again (a permanent theme of your posts since this crisis broke last year) demand the removal of 'deadwood' staff. Why don't you actually read the quoted words of the Melville Report, in the article you are commenting on: 'Sir David writes that he has received more than 50 submissions from staff, mainly academics, who universally expressed lack of surprise at the events that unfolded. “They attest to problems of student-data quality for internal use over many years and provide many detailed examples of the difficulty of removing students from the record whom they know to have left or who never appeared,” he says. “They generally describe a highly centralised and dictatorial executive led by the vice-chancellor, which was incapable of listening to what was going on in the university, discouraged or ignored criticism and made decisions without consultation.” Therefore, I suggest you stop aiming your invective at frontline staff and start suggesting, as many of those staff are, that the real 'deadwood' in London Met are precisely the swelled ranks of an incompetent, and ineffective, dictatorial management. Yes, London Met may well need to reduce its finances further, so an obvious suggestion therefore would be to cut a huge swath through the entire top-heavy management structure that has proved so catastrophic. Over the last few years, whilst frontline staff have been cut, management jobs at faculty/dept level, and across the university as a whole, have more than doubled, as have the so-called performance 'bonuses' of those at the top. So yes, there is plenty of money that can be saved, and there are jobs that can be cut, and that money and those jobs should come from those that either directly got, or allowed through inaction, the university into the mess it is currently in! They are the real deadwood at London Met, and it is time for them to be forced out.
Alf Morris was appointed interim VC 6 months ago amid a fanfare of hope. "An expereincede troubleshooter" - "Just what Lonmet needs" - "A new broom to sweep the rotten edifice clean". So what has he actually accomplished, apart from pocketing £200k for nothing? How many days has Morris actually attended Londonmet in the past 6 months? What changes has he been responsible for?
The THE editor should impose a word count, oytherwise you get the prattle like 'Evidence-based Conclusions' an essay!! As for ole Morris, he struck Gold at London Met. All the epithets attributed to him were meant to calm the union! He did next to zilch. He will be around in various capacitie when Gillies becomes the VC.
If Morris was appointed with all the wonderful claims of being such a fantastic opportunity for LMU to move forward, yet he ultimately achieved nothing during his tenure as VC.... what makes anyone think Gillies will be any different?
@What about Morris? Morris was in a better position than Gillies is in the sense, he had his career and was semi-retired, and hence did not need to worry about the career any more. But Gillies desperately needs London Met as this has been the only instituion which made him the VC offer after he was sacked at City U. Gillies will have to listen to the BOG if he wants to carry on as VC and not be sacked again. As for his achievement, certainly he will listen to BOG as different from what he did at City U.
"Gillies will have to listen to the BOG if he wants to carry on as VC and not be sacked again. " IS THAT A GOOD THING OR A BAD THING?
'What about Morris?'/'What did Morris achieve?': Well, for those who've been asleep for the last eight months, LondonMet HAS moved forward: the former VC is no longer in post; an independent inquiry has taken place, overseen by an interim VC; a new permanent VC has been appointed; the (evidence-based) outcome of the independent inquiry is about to be published, and the next stage will - hopefully - be swift and decisive action by the new VC, based on the findings of the Melville Report, hopefully along the lines described by 'Evidence-based Conclusions'. But then you'd know all this already, WDMA, if you'd actually bothered to read the lead article and EBC's postings.
"an independent inquiry has taken place, overseen by an interim VC; a new permanent VC has been appointed;"........... and it's business as usual, with large G+T's all round at at the next BOG meeting.
Even with a new VC in place - with the same old BoG and the same Exec Group in place, how much change will the new VC be able to push through? The place needs a thorough clean sweep. For any meaningful change to happen, the whole Exec Group (Aylett, Link, Nelson, Lister) and Peter Anwyl need to GO!
WAM: can't disagree with you there! But the developments of the last week have offered reason to hope that change may be possible. It would be nice to think that, for once, the light at the end of the tunnel might be something more positive than an oncoming train. We live in hope....
Tough call/.Evidences-based whatever. Your thinking shows why you are still at that institution. Gillies is wounded and as VC again will not act on Melville Report unless BOG tells him to do so. Melville and other reports are going to be buried. No senior management member will go. When the real student numbers are known, bingo! Better look for a job if you can get it. BOG would have extracted an understanding with Gillies before they offered him a job. He is deperate to get out of the City U, fed up being demoted as a prof. Dream on for now until the active student count begins
I am astounded by the vitriole on parade here. And let's get a few facts straight. SYSS has not existed for a long while now. It is ISS and is not, nor never has been, responsible for the accuracy of student data as claiimed above. As for counting applicants as students, how could that happen? It didn't, nor does not. What happened was to do with completion of the final piece of assessment. Roper, for whatever reason (probably to stave off the need to make redundancies), chose to ignore the facts that students were not funding complete. Who benefitted? Why, those academics who now shout the loudest - the ones that didn't see these students through. That's about as bad as Roper. But no, they were/are not culpable, mere victims of some centralist regime - they claim. My heart bleeds. These are negative, vengeful UCU-ists. And who do they represent? No one but themselves! The best they can do is to not spread slander, it can, and does, hurt. I'd like to know the percentage of staff that remain in UCU. LIke Unison, less than 30%?
The legal definition of slander: "Libel is committed when defamatory matter is published in permanent form or in a form which is deemed to be permanent. Defamation published by spoken word or in some other transitory form is slander." So it is Libel and not Slander. Apart, from this nitpicking point many who worked there agree with you 100%
Thank you for putting me right. Blogs aren't transitory forms - they are published fora where any nut or avenging malcontent can post hateful and defamatory remarks, without having to back it up with evidence. I implore future bloggers to desist from dragging everyone into this mire.
The University was funded for around 15000 students by HEFCE, this is now about 10000, (it is full time equivalents so the actual numbers are higher) The University may have 25000,30000 or whatever on its books but a lot of these ar etaught at collaborative arrangements overseas. There is no benefit to the University in overclaiming these numbers as what counts is the income received. For every instiution lots more students apply than actually come. People have 5, it was 6 choices with UCAS, and all of these are downloaded onto the system direct from UCAS so there wil lbe lots more people there than actually enrol. None of these get counted in anything that is returned or has ever been returned Likewise there are lots of student accounts on the directory but aside from making it harder to manage it has no relevance to student numbers reported or used anywhere. Unfortunately this site does attract a number of bitter ex-employees who tend to show only their actual lack of knowledge as to what goes on or went on. And the person who has clearly identified the member of ISS should be careful as laws of libel do apply to websites.
It may well be the case that only a small handful of embittered academics and failed PhD students are responsible for many of the more vitriolic posts here, but the fact remains that members of staff within ISS (the IT support department that was for a few years after the UNL/LGU merger renamed SYSS) *were* told not to concern themselves with any fanciful notions of quality and accuracy when it came to student data. It's not difficult to see why in hindsight, and does raise uncomfortable questions as to how far down below the executive level the rot has spread. I'd start by looking at those who received the biggest performance bonuses, itself a rather perverse concept in a department that does nothing but lurch from one self-inflicted crisis to the next. A previous contributor remarked that too many inept staff are in their jobs because of a system of patronage & sycophancy, rather than any technical or managerial ability. That's ISS all over. Perhaps wholesale outsourcing of the IT department *is* what LMU needs? It would certainly help to prevent anything like the above happening again.
Just a point for query. it will be interesting to know how many apply through UCAS and how many are recruited 'through clearing'. I suspect almost all through the latter route. Why?
The named but not shamed ones. They blame teaching staff and others, never themselves. Their logic, argument and pronouncements are Orwellian. Student achievement means bums on seats. Quality teaching means doing what managers say. They keep pocketing the cash after several damning reports with no shame whatsoever. Blame UCU, blame Unison, blame HEFCE, blame ISS, blame each other probably. If its such a brilliant place to work why were hundreds of people who asked for Voluntary Redundancy turned down? Why are there adverts for jobs? Why are many middle managers leaving? Why are staff demoralised? They just don't get it. Many who stay want to be part of the solution. And that does not mean following their Orwellian dictats. They have all the management skills of an old baseball bat. If Gillies can't tackle them and save the University it will have to get closed down. One thing I will say for them, they are a formidable bunch. Nothing to be proud of. They use the University resources to further their own ends. God knows how they live with themselves. They will get increasingly desperate though as this follows through. Yes, many of the staff are afraid.
'End Libel Now', I have a certain amount of sympathy for your position. It is why I keep exhorting fellow contributors to stick to the facts that are backed-up be evidence. I too do not believe that most of the staff in ISS (who I accept are hardworking and diligent) are in any way culpable for the chronic failure of London Met's student record system and the data therein (significant evidence for this ascertain is provided by both Melville and the earlier BDO report). However, there is certainly a suggestion in both reports of culpability at the senior management level of ISS, as there is explicitly with regards to the Executive Group who had overall responsibility for the direction and remit of ISS-maintained student record systems. Unfortunately, the remainder of your post then does exactly what you are (rightly) accusing others of doing. You launch a non-evidence based attack on academics and the staff unions. As I have said previously (and again, this is backed up by the evidence) frontline lecturers were not responsible for the inaccurate data return re completing students. Indeed, as Melville has pointed out (again with the evidence) it was those academics who tried in vain to have such students removed from the records at the earliest opportunity but were stymied by a management-imposed system that prevented them from doing so. This isn't a question of outsourcing ISS (the reports of regular failures concerning the performance of most outsourced IT departments in the public sector are not ones to recommend such a course of action), or of cutting even more frontline academics. This is about removing a self-serving management structure that has blighted both frontline academics and frontline support staff throughout the university. Don't start playing their divide and rule game between academics/support staff. It is they that have to go.
If you only read selectively you will not see that I was trying to defend against libel. And I repeat. UCU and Unision do NOT represent the staff, not anymore. Only a vicious, SWP rump
Alf Morris has been a deadbeat but this has been a step forward in real terms. Well worth £250k+ pro rata. Congratulations Alf. The George Board of Governors salute you. And you too Bob Aylett, the interim, interim VC. You have been wonderful as well. Your sunny outlook continues to inspire us all as you now carry the Olympic torch of the Capability Curriculum bequeathed to you by Bryan Roper. It is a heavy burden, nobly held.
Evidence-based. You are right. I've fallen into the same trap. Most academics, like most PSD staff are decent but it's academics blaming PSD staff for the problem that gets to me. They are culpable too. They didn't get students through. But this has to stop. We are eating our own and I am as bad as the rest so I stand down from the blogs now and just ask people to stop the attacks.
I am asking this question again: how many students apply through UCAS and how many are recruited 'through clearing'. I suspect almost all through the latter route. Why?
Students through clearing. Because we are not UCL. Next.
Shurely shume kind of record?
"Students through clearing.". Fix this by entertaining applications through only UCAS. If you cannot just close the place as 'data cooking' will come back again when the students you recruit do not get through/drop out.
One department is a microcosm of what the design of senior managers is. Previously with 150 staff it had 3 or 4 managers. Now with 50 staff almost a third will be managers with a proposal first seen late last year and being undertaken now. Head of this, head of that, head of the other, head of ballpoint pens, head of rubberbands, asistant head of teacups. Its mad.
@ Many Managers Make Light Of Work. 50/3 = 20 new managers for 30 staff. Why not MAKE ALL 50 managers? These hard-working managers are needed to generate 'the next round of shall we say ' creative student data'? Where is 'Tough Call/ Evidence-based whatever, rady with his page long essay to explain why 20 hard-working managers are needed for 30 hard-working staff!
...
For those mathematical -bent of mind 50/3 =17 , I just threw in 3 more managers for a good measure for this Great University! If you want to comment on my abilities, please do so, I was a 'clearing' recruitee!!!!
Teacups only. What about saucers. And who is going to correctly count all this crockery? Bring back "The SYSS Identity Management Team". You are all talking out of the backs of your dishwashers! And who will check the counting of the counters? Answer me that. More reports, BDO, Deloittes, Melville. We love them all.
'Good Managers for a Great University!', something pithy for you. I think London Met has far too many managers and quite a few of those posts need to be removed. There needs to be a much flatter management structure throughout the university - especially, at faculty/dept level, with entire levels of management removed This will save a lot more money than getting rid of frontline academic/PSD staff, and unlike removing frontline staff will not diminish the student experience.
'No one is going to achieve anything': well, with your sunny optimism, its just as well you weren't appointed as the new VC! In seriousness, although we can speculate ad nauseum on how his experience might influence his choice of action, no-one (bar the odd psychic, perhaps) can accurately predict the actions of the new VC. We can only hope that his academic standing, his stated priorities, his experience, and what appears to be his ability to stand up for what he believes, will stand him in good stead through what will, no doubt, be a challenging task. Those appointing him would have done so in full knowledge of his history; and it is particularly heartening that he is (according to various press reports) someone who has - in the past - refused to simply placate authority, and someone who had earned the respect of the frontline staff. But only time will tell. London Met has (as I've said before) a diverse and vibrant student body and, on the whole (and notwithstanding some of the more spiteful and uninformed comments on this discussion board), a committed, hard-working and highly skilled (if somewhat careworn) staff. There's a real opportunity here for change. This kind of moment doesn't come along very often. For those who want to see the university recover, it will be time - once the management issues have been properly addressed - to stand solidly behind a new vision, and look to the future. Ignore those perennial pessimists who (a bit like the disappointed vultures in 'Jungle Book') are still hoping the university will (along with life, the universe and everything) collapse. A little energy and optimism (moderated with careful realism) goes a long way...
@ Many Managers Make Light Of Work. Is this the parting gift of Morris? Prime ministers are known to dish out knighthoods when they leave office. Does Prof Gillies know about this?
As someone who has been offered the job of an Assistant Deputy Head of Quality Engagement Achievement Enhancement in the Registry I resent all your remarks. My first act will be to roll myself up into a ball and sing Dixie. To think otherwise is sheer speculation.
Its plain to see its all SWP fault, Unison and UCU left. They started it. All the reports pinpoint them and them alone. They clearly haven't counted students properly. Their members that worked in the various departments are always the first to fiddle data returns. Their presence at senior management level hasn't helped either. No, its definitely them wot did it. Why just the other day they were shouting alot. Very bad. Why don't they just get a hair cut and smarten themselves up. Grow up. Ideologies and morality and principles. Practicalities dear boy and doing what you are told. I didn't get to where I am today by listening to these scoundrels. We all know when push comes to shove they are the last ones to make a difference. Gillies should come in and ban the lot of them and let us get on with ruining the Univesrity.
'Their members that worked in the various departments are always the first to fiddle data returns'. In this satirical outburst, a line of truth.
To answer your question, as clearing is part of the UCAS process then most people do.
Yes, it is primarily a process for those who have applied through UCAS and are unable to get their choice. In this university, it is the only process for students' admission as entry requirements can be fiddled with no minimum UCAS points enforced, unlike say in the City U where it is a top up process with minimum UCAS points.
Unfortunately your statemnet is untrue. Care to substantiate with evidence
Sidcup - sounds like you didn't get the job. Enough now.
Whatever the IT dept are calling themselves this year (SYSS / ISS) makes no difference to the working practices and incompetence of its staff. While there may very well be some very good technical staff working in that dept, they are held back by the lazy inept sycophants who get promoted into Team Leader & manager positions. A case in point is the Identity Management team, which was tasked with the responsibility of centralising the authorative database of all staff & student numbers & personal details, taken from HR & SITS. After 4 years, the basics have still not been done, and the Identity Management team show no ability or competence to even know where to begin. There should have been a priority of ensuring that correct relevant data was taken from SITS. 4 years later, no progress has been made to either ensure that SITS data is relevant, or to use it for Identity Management. There are far too many staff sitting on their backsides excusing their incompetence, and not enough willingness to get things sorted out. I can't see how a new VC will overcome this culture of apathy & ineptitude.
You have identified the biggest problem at LMU. The culture of apathy & inpetitude, whereby people get very defensive and make excuses for their lack of ability, and always blame the lack of progress on other departments. I spent several years at UNL where every meeting was the same. Hours spent sitting round the table in meetings discussing why things cannot be done "because so-and-so would have a problem doing it that way", and the only thing to be agreed at by the end of the meeting, was the need for another meeting. Nothing ever got accomplished except a never-ending necessity for talking-shop meetings to discuss the same old same old. I agree a big part of the problem is incompetent staff who get promoted into manager positions and who then stifle the more technically able staff who work in their departments. That is why most of the capable staff have left and most of the incompetent staff remain, making more & more excuses for themselves.
This is all getting very silly. Staff at London Met are no worse than staff anywhere else. I've worked in many places, including a prestigious University of London college, and if anything, London Met staff are of a higher calibre, but this is pointless. Self flagellation is what we do best it seems. We had a VC who let us down, we have taken in students with low A level scores - that's called widening participation - and suddenly we're the worst in the world. No we're not. Can we survive? Yes we can. If the vengeful HEFCE will let us!
Jesus: "I've worked in many places, including a prestigious University of London college, and if anything, London Met staff are of a higher calibre,.." Care to name your current department in London Met and the previous "prestigious University of London College", so that other posters can judge?
Would hardly describe HEFCE's not unreasonable expectation that London Met should follow the same rules as every other HE institution in the country as 'vengeful'. As a tax payer I expect no more, no less. But London Met and it's staff have always been a bit 'special'.
Gillies was sacked from City University, for not following the City Uni BoG instructions. There is no way he will stand up to the LMU BoG. Whereas Roper had the BoG in his pocket, this time the BoG know that Gillies is a neutered dog on his last chance to keep a job, without any will to make any waves, and will be seen as such by the rest of the Exec Group.
I am not submitting myself to be judged by a pack of nameless accusators - you'll just have to take my word for it that I do a good job - I'm not concerned with your view of me. Vengeful HEFCE? - I think so. Roper - misguidedly - tried to fight the pre and post 92 class war. Mistake. HEFCE public school boys were not pleased. I despair for the decent people who have worked hard over the years for London Met. I really do. We've let in too many Trojan horses...
Which one is you : Jesus or Jesus Wept? Only Ignoramus like you think the HEFCE is filled with public school boys. Decent hardworking people already left your University. Read what: Many Managers Make Light Of Work says: "One department is a microcosm of what the design of senior managers is. Previously with 150 staff it had 3 or 4 managers. Now with 50 staff almost a third will be managers with a proposal first seen late last year and being undertaken now. Head of this, head of that, head of the other, head of ballpoint pens, head of rubberbands, asistant head of teacups. Its mad." What happened to the 100 out 150 We wonder!
I don't know what you're talking about but it's not helping. Maybe you don't want the place to survive. Me? I'm just trying to make sure that the blog waves are not filled with those that seek its destruction. London Met has been audited beyond what's decent. No institution, no management structure, could withstand that without some fall-out. Why is that I ask you?
"London Met has been audited beyond what's decent. No institution, no management structure, could withstand that without some fall-out. Why is that I ask you?" Simple explanation. Your university using the deception of ghost students , as the actual students-student data problems according to HEFCE , fleeced HEFCE to the tune of £36 million. No other university has done this. You should be glad HEFCE did not order the closure.
'No other university has done this. I think you will find that a number have and have now also been caught out. The only difference is that they were not a s big and so the sums involved were not as great and they were only done for 1 year rather than 3 as london Met were. i am sure that the Times Higher have FOI requests in to discover who and how much though.
We've already seen a change of VC many times in the recent past. Floud - Roper - Morris - Gillies What we need is a far deeper and wider change. A new BoG and a new Senior Exec Group. Get rid of Anwyl and Aylett, Link, Lister, Nelson. No change will happen with the same BoG & EG in place.
@Dear Christ £36 millon sounds like the sum taken from a securicor heist involving an armed gang! @more change is needed: you need root and branch changes. But if what @Many Managers Make Light Of Work says: "One department is a microcosm of what the design of senior managers is. Previously with 150 staff it had 3 or 4 managers. Now with 50 staff almost a third will be managers with a proposal first seen late last year and being undertaken now. Head of this, head of that, head of the other, head of ballpoint pens, head of rubberbands, asistant head of teacups. Its mad" is true, getting rid of mere 'Anwyl and Aylett, Link, Lister, Nelson' won't do! Gillies can't win this as he has become a weak person after his Cuty U sacking and would listen to the BOG and the exec. He can't risk another sacking.
What absolute and utter claptrap! All these posters who've suddenly become experts on people and things about which they know absolutely nothing! The fact is that (a) there is now a new VC appointed, and (b) a report based on evidence. The signs are that - as the new VC has a credible record, and the report is already in the public domain - things must change; and hopefully for the better. The spite, vitriol and sheer ignorance of some of the outpourings on this discussion board are quite breathtaking. Haven't these people got anything better to do with their time?
@Tough Call. Aren't you going to apply for one of the departmental manager posts that @Many Managers Make Light Of Work mentions?
Actually since they have been fired by London Met then they probably do not have anything better to do with their time.
'To Tough Call': more tedious rubbish. I rest my case.
LMU is a fraud. Staff lie and cover up for each other, hardly any portray integrity. There might be one or two out of 50 who are genuinely interested in their students’ academic potential, the rest are parasites using the University as a predatory vehicle to enrol as many students as possible to extract the yearly £3500 course fee from them. Giving everyone a D or C, that way no-one will notice the scam. Students will be leaving the University with at least £10000 worth of debt for a useless piece of paper. But then the entire British Educational system is a farce, let’s all "pretend" to give everyone equal opportunities and blame students if they do not achieve by “fitting” the system.
... and if you don't believe 'Observer', ask the little green men in the big spaceship, who told him so...
ISS are a totally dysfunctional department. The helpdesk is staffed by morons and is a waste of space. The IT support for the SITS database system is a joke. There is no way to tell when a student leaves LMU so the database still has old students from 10 years ago listed as current students. The whole Student Record System is a shambles and nobody has the will to address this fact and so the problems just continue with everybody pretending it's going to magically get better all by itself.
ISS has been a totally dysfunctional department for 2 years. Ever since the experienced managers were made redundant and the established SYSS departments were restructured into new teams with new unproven (useless) managers, it has all fallen apart and nobody knows how to make it function adequately again. The incompetence of the Identity Management team and the lack of SITS support and WebLearn support are just symptoms of the deeper malaise. The whole ISS dept is a rotting corpse. The best thing for the university is to make all ISS staff redundant and outsource the whole dept.
There is a very easy way to tell which students are no longer active students.... A student enrolls for a course. That course has an end date. Set the student IT account to expire shortly after that date, after the exams for that course have finished. That way there should be no dormant student account on the system. Lecturers should know the names of all students on their course. If a student doesn't attend classes or submit coursework or take exams, the student is reported and the student IT account is flagged as suspended. If the suspended account is not re-enabled within a set time, the student is considered to be dropped out. This is something the Identity Management system should be driving forward. So why isn't it happening?
Yes you are correct. It should be simple to tell which student accounts are not active in the manner you suggest. Why isn't the Identity Management team doing their job? Because they are incompetent and don't know how and have been bluffing and blustering their way through each day for the last 4 years with inept management allowing such incompetence to continue. That's why.
The Independent is carrying a report about London Met which says that BOGs and the Exec are asked by the HEFCE to go. No other clear ot will take place. Well what you guys say will not happen as Gillies takes over and new BOG are put in place.
Getting ready for the Learning Mill now. Come on chaps - best foot forward.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Only a few Polys were ready for university status and in 1992 a set of citerai should have been drawn. Once they became universities, LMU and LJMU expanded and any one from home or abroad whom calls himself/herself student and breathing was admitted and creative methods were used for counting and progression. The only solution is reduce the size of these two universities, allow only 20% top up during clearning and the rest through formal UCAS applications. Minimum entry criteria of A level passes for direct degree entries. Those who do not have them should study foundation degree. Mergers of these post-92s are very essential in London. London Met, Leeds Met, Manchester Met and LJMU are not fit to be universities.
From the Independent: 'Sir David also blamed a group of senior managers, including the university secretary, the finance director and the deputy vice-chancellor (academic).' Zero credibility. Bye bye at last.
'The body which funds English universities has taken the unprecedented step of calling for the mass resignation of governors at a university accused of misusing public money' ('Independent', 23 Nov 2009): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/university-accused--of-16336m-student-scam-1825909.html
The Independent report makes it clear now why we had to have an acting VC from outside and why Aylett could do no more than be interim VC for a couple of weeks. Now he has been named his position is untenable. Once he goes then the power of those bullying stooges whom he has protected for years may wane (including she-who-must-be-obeyed). This is indeed good news for those still at London Met and struggling to cope with the fallout from a disastrous period of management incompetence.
Gillies is know to have his way at City U. HEFCE is going to hoist on the University governors, they and Gillies will have the agenda of HEFCE-full clawback and strict enforcement of admissions criteria for students and the progression rules. When the actual numbers of active students are known, Gillies will act. If he does not bother with numbers this counting problem will revisit again. In six months the UCU will be asking Gillies to go!!
LMU is a body in terminal decline. The onloy way to save it is to cut out the cancerous tumour, before the whole body dies & rots from the inside. The whole BoG, plud the whole Exec Group of Aylett, Lister, Nelson, Link, McParland, all must go. They are the malignant cancer that needs to be cut out and flushed away, in order for the rest of the body to recover & survive.
Replacing the VC alone is not the answer. If the current BoG and the current Exec Group remain in place, Gillies will not get the cooperation & support he needs to make the necessary changes needed to save LMU. Gillies will find himself undermined at every turn, and his position will quickly become untenable. The only way forward is to get rid of Aylett, Lister, Nelson, Link, McParland, & Anwyl. That whole level of rotten putrified senior management must go before any progress can be made.
"When the actual numbers of active students are known, Gillies will act. " ............. and how is he going to get the real number? Who is going to supply the figures? Where will the data come from?...... The ability to produce the accurate numbers has been available all the time but staff have an agenda to continue over-representing the number, in order to keep an over-inflated level of staff on the payroll. The people who can supply the real numbers know that by doing so, they will be earmarking whole swathes of teaching & support staff for redundancy...... Academics are keen to give over-inflated student numbers, so as to stay in their job teaching all these 'non-existent' students. Student Records wont want to admit they knew the real numbers all the time. Identity Management staff wont want to admit that they have just been sitting on their hands doing nothing for the last 4 years..... Aylett, Lister, Link, & Nelson wont want to admit their own shortcomings in this fiasco.... So who will support Gillies?
Does Melville have any evidence at all?
Un / ill / partly informed posters are a bore. We're largely reading the same tired gripes we've been seeing on here for months and years. If you're disgruntled ex-staff, let go and move on. If you're still at London Met, get/stay on board or go. This bickering really isn't helping to achieve anything. Yes, there have been big problems at London Met and perhaps some remain for now but why would anyone who believes in a widening participation approach or has previously bought into it want to undermine it? When London Met's mandate was to cater for and include widening participation groups, it strikes me as a little perverse to stack the cards against them in terms of HEFCE funding requirements. HEFCE should ask themselves whether they want the 'black, single mothers' to have access to HE. If not, then say it so that institutions such as our own can reluctantly change our business models. As for the cash, that is now being repaid, having previously been sunk largely in staff wages (Admittedly including ongoing payments to the evident architect of this difficulty! [~£280k pa]) and the odd Science Centre (£30m). Governors are liable for a nominal £1 liability, so cash won't be forthcoming from them. With a good admiralty, new skipper and crew we can get out of the doldrums but we do also need a new culture and an end to the backbiting.
To Weston-Belle - you are right - why are HEFCE not accountable? Name those officers who were found culpable! To Damien - what money would that be you refer to? Does it need to be said again and again - the only beneficiaries are those who did not lose their jobs before now. No one personally pocketed money. Not even the Governors. Like the poster said above - it's time those with personal vendettas moved on and let those of us that remain continue to work for the good of the institution. Now, we've got work to do! Move on...
London Met is the most scrutinised university in the UK. How many other universities could've withstood the level of investigation that London Met has been subject to? The question to HEFCE is why is this the case?