Sussex’s future: fewer staff, more students

Sussex was clawed back by Hefce and then given it all back.Why can,t this be done for Londonmet?

Odd, isnt' it?

"The Vice-Chancellor claims the cuts are unavoidable given reductions in government funding. However this hasn’t stopped pay rises for senior management, with the latest increases bringing the Vice-Chancellor’s salary to £227,000. There are now more senior managers on six-figure salaries than ever before, with the wage bill for the twenty top paid staff exceeding £2.6 million." - Sussex Student Union's Statement

This is so sad. The new administration are cutting back in the areas that Sussex was so famous for in the past, such as English, Art History, Computer Science and Life sciences, and instead building up new areas such as Film and Media. Bit by bit Sussex University as we know it is being destroyed. I wonder what other alumni think of this devastation.

Don't really care what the alumni think. Those of us that work in institutions that have balanced their budgets for years think it's about time some of these feather-bedded places woke up and smelled the coffee.

@Aristotle "Sussex was clawed back by Hefce and then given it all back.Why can,t this be done for Londonmet?" Because London Met is a crappy 3rd rate university and acts as the illegal immigrants camp.

Not very Platonic!

http://defendsussex.wordpress.com

To say that "London Met is a crappy 3rd rate university" is just a downright ignorant comment and Plato should apologise for posting such crass comments on this site - it helps no one to slag off an institution and make accusations without evidence. Shame on you.

To say that "London Met is a crappy 3rd rate university" is just a downright ignorant comment and Plato should apologise for posting such crass comments on this site - it helps no one to slag off an institution and make accusations without evidence. Shame on you.

It is of course grandly crass to insult any Institution in the way that "Plato" has just done. That individual posts under multiple names and has a bit of a one-track mind.....unfortunately it does not have much traffic on it either.

Professor Farthing has long been associated with the British Society of Gastroenterology's journal "Gut". Not sure if this represents the ownership of some or a kick in them. But I know where I feel this . . .

@academic Yours is also a pseudonym, could be one of several!!!

The article does not represent the anger and position of the body of the university. These cuts are carefully planned but based on spurious data. A team of overpaid managers with no loyalties to or understanding of Sussex University's great intellectual traditions, are massacring the spirit of a distinctive university. The forward plans are uncosted, and students would be advised to look elsewhere for a sound future.

Stephen Medcalfe foresaw this sad news back when the Schools of Study were restructured. Though someone above cares little what I might think, as an alumni, a second generation Sussex English graduate, with a deep love of the history of the univerisity, a career aim to teach here in the future - this is sad news indeed, even moreso to see how student opposition is being blocked. UP THE PROTEST!

Yep there are too many "senior managers" in British Universities that can't teach or do research sitting in silly strategy meetings that mean nothing. They are overpaid, lazy and disruptive to Universities - sack them and save the huge wastage going on.

I fear this is just the start of the process and reductions in staffing in the HE sector is going to be the norm for the next few years. Sussex like many other institutions has been struggleing to balance their books for years. They hoped that the 2008RAE would resolve the issue but when the impovement in quality did not create increased funding they were in trouble, the gamble did not work. As the HE sector celebrated we the results of the 2008RAE the rest of the economy was already suffering - remember all those big names in the retail world sinking rapidly without trace(Wollworths, MFI etc). In contrast the Public sector and HE saw hardly any change, they re-arranged a few deck chairs but the ships in the HE fleet sailed on. Now however the HE fleet is now sailing into troubled waters. All the pointers undicate that 2010-11 will be the start of a period of cuts in public spending. We do not know the scale and how they will land but the word from Whitehall is a choice is betwen savage and severe depending on who resides in No. 10. The bottom line is that even the well managed, financially sound institutions will be struggling to balance the books so institutions like Sussex which have struggled for years are going to have a very tough time. It is very easy to blame HE's Senior Management Teams but at the end of the day they can not magic up extra money or extra international students. In some cases they could halt proposed capital programmes which would save job in the short-term but perhaps damage the institution in the longer term. Otherwise they either apply the cut uniformly (so everyone suffers) or they identify areas of weakness and phase it out. Painful as it may seem I think the second option is the way forward. It is time to remove some of the excess that has been carried along by the rest and ensure the HE sector comes out of the next few difficult years stronger. Given our courses tend to last three years we do not have the flexibility to change direction quickly since we have to maintain our commitments to existing students. So now is the time for institutions to start working together to help resolve some of these issues so we can maintain the quality of the student experience and respond to the uncertain future more rapidly.

I just want to reply to 'just the start' (why can't people use their real names?). His or her argument is purely economic, but surely 'he' or 'she' realises that there are political issues here? As far as I know the cuts in public spending have to do with the collapse of the financial markets which were then supported by vast amounts of public money which dwarf HEFCE monies. More specifically, I believe there has been general creed and corruption in public services in the UK were senior managers have paid themselves huge salaries during the boom times. Why should a VC of a university be paid twice as much as the prime minister? Surprising their solution is always to cut courses and staff and never the themselves. I would predict that if you looked at the costs in most universities (and other supposedly 'public' bodies) is that what has increased proportionally in relation to all other costs, is what they euphemistically call 'central expenditure'; that is, themselves. And why not? What else would they do? The answer to politics is always more politics and never to accept any such mystical concepts such as 'economic necessity'. A necessity is this situation is always someone else's contingency.

WL is right. And I'd add: any fool can cut. Why the people in charge get paid what they do get paid, is to think up more intelligent answers. One is as identified by "Sack the senior managers". What do they add, what do they cost, hey presto. Magic.

I was most alarmed to read that the Sussex Students Union had been prevented from even holding meetings to discuss the cuts since, mysteriously, every suitable lecture theatre had been booked up for "equipment inspection" for the foreseeable future on every possible evening. I am not sure I agree with David Trotter's analysis - if you have an institution taking in several hundred million pounds, there needs to be a Chief Executive Officer and he needs to be accountable for his actions. However, the profligacy of Senior Management Teams does extend to staggering breadth, and they would all almost certainly benefit from being trimmed back somewhat.

It is always attractive to suggest that the costs of vcs and other senior managers should be cut - but it is also faintly ridiculous to suggest this as a solution to the situation that HE faces. Greater accountability and less whimsicalty about their behaviour, perhaps; proper development and training, definitely. The appointment of academics to these roles on the basis that they understand the businees of academia - but undertsand little else - is a source of occasional severe difficulty. Some respond well to the challenges - many couldn't run the corner shop. I agree with WiL on the fundamentals. Eroding HE funding is a political decision in the face of an economic necessity. The problem is the failure of HE to argue and project it's importance. Too many contibutors assume this to be self evident - displaying a dangerous arrogance which harms us all. Others, even more idiotic, argue that HE is a social problem. Personally, although I have worked there, I do not understand the details of Sussex's decisions. I do believe that most HEIs will need to go through a similar process in the next 3 years.

Michael T - I would not go so far as to suggest that trimming back executive management is a solution to our current problems. I would, however, say that if cuts need to be made, then they should be distributed fairly - and that includes those at the top as well as those at the bottom. From the point of view of the bottom of the rung worker, who may well be of fundamental importance to the institution, who sees that their job could have been salvaged had only the executive team taken a pay freeze, one quickly understands both sides of the argument. Yes, jobs will have to be cut, but leaders should be doing precisely that - leading by example, and not considering themselves beyond the reach of the financial squeeze.

SussexLecturer - I am sorry to have to exacerbate your fears, but the twenty highest paid members of the University will almost certainly be taking more than their wage in expenditure. I cannot find Sussex's Annual Accounts on their website, but I can almost guarantee that their expenses run into the millions. You mention that the Vice Chancellor is paid £222k - he almost certainly receives a grace-and-favour (and inevitably expensive) house as part of his benefits package and I suspect only very rarely dips his hand into his own pocket. Plain wrong doesn't quite cover it.

I may have expressed myself badly. "Senior management" are clearly needed; "senior leadership" would of course be rather better, but they callt hemselves management, so let's stick with that term. Where there almost certainly is room for reduction is in fact in the next tier down: directors and assistant directors of this and that, all with admin. assistants and secretaries, all costing a fair bit, sloshing through a fair bit in out-ofo-office expenses, and so on; and rarely, as far as I can see ,discernibly adding much that could not in a crisis be done without. That, I think, is where there is probably room for a little streamlining.

A new senior management team were shipped in wholesale a few years ago. Inevitably they negotiated salaries way beyond their competence (222k for a VC at a university the size of Sussex, disgraceful) and demonstrate little loyalty to the place. One is already leaving. We are just seeing a cadre of career senior managers in HE at the moment, moving from place to place notching up higher pay each time. I've been to numerous meetings fronted by the VC and whilst his PR and communication skills are okay, all he has really ever said is that Sussex needs to boost its income. I've witnessed no leadership from the front, no 'this is how to go about it', just empty words. Equally, I've rarely witnessed our senior managers out and about, talking to academics, motivating and leading from the front. Our senior managers have taken a pay freeze, but so what when we will be lucky to get 1% and they have a massive pay cushion negotiated on entry? Here's a challenge, Professor Farthing, take an immediate 35% pay cut (you won't starve on 150k pa) and demonstrate to us that you are worth your salary.

SussexLecturer2 - I agree entirely with your observations. We had a General Meeting at our institution at which it was demanded that the Executive Finance Director disclose publicly his salary. To the astonishment of the 120 or so people present, he bellowed into the microphone that he earns £115,000 per annum. When those present protested at this, his response was simply "Life isn't always equal". Notably, the Vice Chancellor (who was sat behind him), quickly made a speedy exit at this point before he might have been forced to explain that his own wage is double this and that he receives an inordinate number of 'perks' (grace & favour home, for instance) for his efforts. We have the same issue with our VC - he speaks interminably about public engagement, growth of income and new opportunities, but never once provides a single word of substance about how to achieve any of it. Speaking local communities leaders, it all appears to be hubris at any rate. Why on earth these people think they are worth more than the Head of Government is beyond comprehension.

Sussex is just about the worst run University I've ever known. The VCEG are not just profligate, they are incompetent. When they hired the new heads of school on enormous salaries (as part of the supposedly cost-neutral restructuring) whom they then charged with the task identifying which colleagues to fire, they made a total pigs ear of it. For most Managerial appointments they use the City Recruitment Consultants Perret Laver. Perret Laver charge a fortune for their services. I know because they rang me up to ask for advice on whom to hire, and I made them tell me how much they charge. Besides can Perret Laver be that good when for such a huge salary they only managed to get the present VC! When the new troika came in no-one could explain how restructuring the University into Schools was going to solve the two problems, poor student experience and lack of money. Last year, some departments made big improvements on the former, which showed up in vastly improved NSS scores. The PVC took the credit. The chaos the restructuring has caused this term will inevitably take its toll on the student experience. So all that work will be ruined. The PVC will be ok though, having got a new job. As for the financial problem, now we know how that was to be tackled. Saddle certain Schools with a disproportionate slice of the deficit, and then tell them that they have to save a lot of money quickly by cutting posts. Hope that staff in Schools identified for investment adopt an I'm all right Jack attitude, and show no solidarity to their colleagues. Anyone fool coul do that. It shows a complete lack of imagination. It demoralizes staff, and creates waves of protest. Academics have to spend hours of their time thinking of ways to counteract or mitigate the damage done by the daft policies of the managers, which will adversely affect their teaching and research. It also triggers flight. Anyone who can get out will get out, and those with the opportunity to go elsewhere will be the ones the University has most reason to keep. The new investment in security which was to save the University. The Politics MA recruited so poorly they had to pull it. They had to move the new person they appointed to teach on it to IR. The MA in International Security has recruited 15. The MAs in the area where 3 of the people whom they propose to sack work have 23, and 33 respectively. They are destroying areas in which Sussex has a good reputation, and can recruit, to make room for investment in areas in which it has no reputation, and where it is an open question how well it can recruit. And this is where salvation lies! One final point. They are only mindlessly implementing the HE policy of the present Government.

As other people have mentioned, the VCEG have manipulated the student quotas to allow for growth in their pet departments. What's worse is the almost arbitrary way that central costs are recharged against the schools. When we were reviewed by very experienced managers from other high profile universities, they were shocked by the level of the charges that were levied on our school, and of the difficulty of seeing through the RAM charges to understand where the costs could be apportioned. Sussex is suffering now because their central administrations costs are out of kilter with their income, not because of poorly performing academic units.

The proposals offered by the VCEG threaten to disrupts people's lives in the most fundamental way. Yet they seem to have proceeded with planning in the most slapdash way. They state they wish "to cut 13 teaching faculty from a pool of 30 teaching faculty below professorial level" in the Informatics School. Yet it is a matter of public record there are only 29 faculty below professorial level within this school . How much confidence should we have in the workability of their plans if they don't know how many faculty there are in the schools? http://www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/role_list.html

Faust - absolutely right. What's even more surprising is that whilst new heads of school have negotiated/been offered salaries vastly out of proportion, most of the actual work is being done by the next management tier down, Directors in Schools and Heads of Department . Their handsome reward - a couple of thousand pounds above normal academic salary. Why they are willing to be exploited in this manner is beyond me. If VCEG and School Heads are worth so much, let them prove it by managing competently whilst the rest of us get on with doing what the university is supposed to do, teach and research.

YetAnotherSussexLecturer They state they wish "to cut 13 teaching faculty from a pool of 30 teaching faculty below professorial level" in the Informatics School. Yet it is a matter of public record there are only 29 faculty below professorial level within this school . As well as not being able to count, why start lower down? Surely, as the most expensive academics profs should be first in line for the chop unless they can clearly demonstrate their worth in terms of leading research teams etc. Nothing to do with professorial dominance in senior management and on committees, I'm sure!!

Another threat Sussex Univeristy has made is to the childcare facilities on campus. Sussex University Creche and Nursery offer an outstanding service to parents on campus, be they students or staff. They are currently threatened by University management with closure, either in their present form (by being privately outsourced) or outright (by being shut down altogether). At present, childcare provision is subsidised by the University; management are no longer prepared to continue doing so. Yet having decent childcare on campus is a major enabler of student parents to pursue their degrees; it also allows staff to return to work relatively early, thereby saving the University from having to find maternity replacements. The provision of good childcare is a major consideration for prospective or current parents, when choosing to accept a job or a place at a University. Without it, the University's stated commitments both to gender equality and to attracting the best faculty and students look undermined. SAVE THE SUSSEX CRECHE AND NURSERY - <http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/savesussexcreche/>

Not sure what force of logic there is in Dr. William Large's dismissal of 'just the start's' arguments are being 'purely economic'. Economics and politics are inextricably linked as Karl Marx well understood. The support given to the banking industry amounted to a staggering figure in excess of 40% of GDP, so all universities (not just Bristol and Sussex) are gong to pay the price in one way or another. Surely we should be directing our anger against greedy incompetent bankers who really know the meaning of BIG SALARIES, all paid out of public money?

I began sympathetic to the good people of Sussex uni, suffering at the hands of overpaid, underskilled managers. However, I can't agree with Sussex Parent. I presume that the university isn't banning the provision of childcare on campus, just refusing to subsidise it? If so, what's the problem? The world is hardly in need of yet more people, yet those of us without children are called upon to subsidise those who CHOOSE to have them. If you can't afford to be a parent, DON'T become one!

One interesting aspect of the bank bail-out, though I don't think I've seen this discussed in any depth, is that the private/public divide, sanctified in free-market and right-wing economics, suddenly looks rather unreal. Like the salaries the public are in effect paying the bankers, indeed.

@Clive So who's going to subsidise you when you're too old to work? Who's going to do the useful work in society, staff the hospitals and wipe your arse when you're old and helpless? Other people's children, that's who. If you want to opt out by all means feel free to off yourself when you're no longer a contributing member of society; after all, there'll be no one there to miss you.

Such sad news - I very nearly accepted a position at Sussex and thought highly of the University when I visited for interview. Still, the simple fact is that universities cannot print money. No amount of complaining about senior management or moaning about anti-intellectualism - no matter how justified - can change the fact that the government no longer values the university system like it once did. The only viable alternative now is attracting private funds - so pucker up everybody. If we're such geniuses we can perform economically valuable work *and* advance our fields. If not, then perhaps the unenterprising in our ranks should be culled. And for the record, in spite of recently attracting private research funding, I give myself about a 25% chance of surviving the inevitable upheaval at my institution.

Mark. 1. So, six billion people in the world and rising all (quite understandably) wanting western level standards of living. Just how much longer do you think that selfish breeders will have a world to overpopulate? 2. I already contribute to your children's schooling, healthcare and every other social service and see this as a reasonable swap for my future health needs etc. After all, they are YOUR children yet you care so much about them that you can't even be bothered to stay at home and look after them. You'd rather hand them over to relative strangers to do the parenting AND expect me to pay. As for "after all, there'll be no one there to miss you". Just pathetically small minded!

What disturbs me is the fact that upon leaving the Sussex campus, one observes a new building site proclaiming the development of a 'new £10million building,' meaning that obviously funds are available, just those in charge are opting to spend money on the creation of unnecessary buildings, in preference to student's education. As a consequence of the budget cuts, they are also planning to close Unisex; a service which has proved invaluable to hundreds of students, meaning that those in charge of finances have decided that student welfare isn't a concern, yet expensive and unnecessary buildings somewhat warrant a necessity.

I merrily sent a small pile of students to Sussex to study for graduate degrees this year from our local department. I like to think they might have improved the place. I won't send any there this year. Anyone catch a whiff of STRIKE about the place lately?

Change is never easy and arguably there may have been other methods to tackle the problems, but surely a little kindness could be shown to the senior management group for taking-on such a major challenge ? Since my first days at Sussex in 1987, I have had a strong interest in the University and have read most of the financial reports, management papers and the Bulletin. The underlying issues have been on-going for far longer than just the period of the last four Vice-Chancellors and Sussex has taken longer than most of its sister, plate-glass peers to start to react. Finally there is a plan in place and it may not be perfect, but it has some redeeming, strong points. It will take time to implement and see positive change, but I believe the general direction is a good one. If there is a failing, then there should have been a stronger emphasis on resetting the balance in the ratio of Academic + Research Staff to Administration Staff - the latest financial report shows disproportionately high admin numbers (and this has been true for many years). It is unwise to cut people from the engine room rather than those on the (over-loaded) upper deck. With regards to new buildings, Farthing is quite right in my view - Sussex is funding this from HEFC grants, loans and endowments, not from direct income. This is not magical, extra money that could be used to keep the status quo. Consider York, Warwick, Lancaster and our other peers - they have maintained their attractiveness to staff and students through improving their facilities and through growth. For too long Sussex has let its campus decline and the changes now underway will help in the medium to long term. Cuts are never welcome and it would be preferable if this was not necessary, but Farthing is doing the best he can with a rather dire situation. Give him a little leeway please.

I don't know much about economics so my comment may sound a little naive, but from an individual point of view I can't see where my £3000+ tuition fees are going. As a student in the Life Sciences department which is facing some of the biggest losses, some lecturers have informed us that they can't provide us with handouts, photocopies or extra resources. They also have to cut out practicals and demonstrations where not compulsory in a bid to save money. These might only seem like small things in comparison to some losing their jobs but as far as I'm concerned I'm paying to be taught and these extra resources improve my learning. We only get about 8 hours a week contact as it is and it isn't uncommon for a class to be cancelled because the lecturer has been told they are needed elsewhere. I just don't see what my fees are for if not for my education. Also earlier this year the university announced a £6.4million refurbishment of the library. I use it almost everyday and its fine like it is, I can't see how any of the new "benefits" will actually make a difference apart from looking more shiny in a prospectus.

LifeSci Student: a little off the point of this thread (for which I apologize) but insofar as tuition fees have been introduced in Germany, at a rather lower level than in the UK, it appears to have been made a legal requirement (at least in Baden-Württemberg, the only Land I know about directly) that the fees must be spent on the "improvement of teaching". Students should lobby for similar legislation here (especially if fees are to go up). I don't think academics would oppose such a demand.

While I do have some sympathy for Michael Farthing doing a difficult job (it can't be pleasant), I fear his course of action risks knocking the bottom out of the University's boat. There is indeed some dead wood amongst staff, and it's always been debatable whether additional services such as childcare provision should be subsidised. With the University's dire financial shortfall most people accept, I think, that leaking money is no longer an option. Morale at the University of Sussex, however, is the lowest I have seen it in the 30 years that I've been associated with the organisation. There's not enough room for everyone on the life raft that Michael Farthing is launching and colleagues are now looking at one another rather 'hungrily' - who's going over the side? Life jackets are being handed out to professors, but the message to the lower ranks is "every man for himself". The more junior faculty are waiting to see who draws short straws and gets the push, or jumping ship beforehand if they can. But perhaps there is another way? I understand that one of the Mathematics professors has calculated that if every member of staff accepted a 5% pay cut (including senior management) the financial shortfall would be more than covered. Is this true? I don't know. But I AM sure I am not alone in being very willing to pull together in this way. The last staff satisfaction survey showed that while staff were critical of senior management they valued and were supportive of the people they worked alongside every day. There's a lot of 'social capital' here unharnessed in the bid to keep the University afloat. How different it would feel if we were all working together to bail the University out! How much additional 'social capital' would be generated by a 'co-operative' approach instead of 'every man for himself'?

I was very interested to read the views of 'Sussex Research Fellow'. In order to continue the constructive discussion, the total staff costs were: £86,947,000 (based on the 2008/2009 financial statements). A 5% cut across the board would therefore equate to an annual saving of £4.35M. Without loss of any staff (of any kind), a 5.76% salary cut would be required to achieve a £5M saving - based on the 2008/2009 academic year costs.

Following on from Marco’s (2 Dec) sympathetic defense of VC Farthing’s efforts – True, the VC-ship is a v. difficult job, but especially, or so it seems, when coming to it from medicine in which decisions are made quickly and notoriously UNtransparently, true to its paternalistic tradition. With little or no experience of the fundamentally different expectations of academia where paternalism is notionally anathema to the educational process, he comes with a serious handicap. Slow to appreciate this, Farthing has failed at every turn to earn the respect of faculty. He appears to disdain Statutory obligations which stand as safety nets for poor judgment. He has not ensured that clear and thorough financial accounting is available to all, and considered in detail by the governing body, the University Council. Nor does he appear to understand that quality in education is labour intensive as the present debacle makes clear. - Nor has he taken a public stand on the value of full employment and the value of education to the faltering national economy. But the greater tragedy may be in the role played by the University Council which in its composition looks more like the board of a corporation than a coherent and encompassing group of people who care a lot about Universities and understand the nitty-gritty of what makes them successful. In fact, it seems that they are “protected” from direct access to academic affairs by an administration anxious, perhaps, to limit their knowledge lest the administration should be given “good advice” rather than confirmation of their own judgments. Without adequate financial detail, and perhaps also without sufficient expertise for its evaluation, their objectives seem to be shaped by the objectives of the corporate world. – Buildings with huge mortgage payments to be paid for on the backs of those in the front line of teaching. Not so! And nothing could speak more clearly for the need of better education!

Following on from Marco’s (2 Dec) sympathetic defense of VC Farthing’s efforts – True, the VC-ship is a v. difficult job, but especially, or so it seems, when coming to it from medicine in which decisions are made quickly and notoriously UNtransparently, true to its paternalistic tradition. With little or no experience of the fundamentally different expectations of academia where paternalism is notionally anathema to the educational process, he comes with a serious handicap. Slow to appreciate this, Farthing has failed at every turn to earn the respect of faculty. He appears to disdain Statutory obligations which stand as safety nets for poor judgment. He has not ensured that clear and thorough financial accounting is available to all, and considered in detail by the governing body, the University Council. Nor does he appear to understand that quality in education is labour intensive as the present debacle makes clear. - Nor has he taken a public stand on the value of full employment and the value of education to the faltering national economy. But the greater tragedy may be in the role played by the University Council which in its composition looks more like the board of a corporation than a coherent and encompassing group of people who care a lot about Universities and understand the nitty-gritty of what makes them successful. In fact, it seems that they are “protected” from direct access to academic affairs by an administration anxious, perhaps, to limit their knowledge lest the administration should be given “good advice” rather than confirmation of their own judgments. Without adequate financial detail, and perhaps also without sufficient expertise for its evaluation, their objectives seem to be shaped by the objectives of the corporate world. – Buildings with huge mortgage payments to be paid for on the backs of those in the front line of teaching. Not so! And nothing could speak more clearly for the need of better education!

There has been an assumption that the proposed redundancies are targeted at 'dead wood or failing areas. This imay not be the case, very distinguished academics are targeted and there is no proof that they come from failing areas in anything other than the most general way that does not relate to them specifically. The grounds are said to be often spurious assumptions calculated in an entirely slapdash way by people who, being new to the University, do not understand the system. Some deficits, it appears, were simply created to order by removing student numbers from schools or departments in order to fund the pet areas of the leadership, like security studies, disaster, two medical projects and business studies, which has had a dramatic fall in applications it seems. No verifiable financial figures are available, and the cuts seem to include wish-lists based on uncosted projections by some Heads of School, who each cost around 120K. Senate has been deprived of a role in the finances. No consultation has taken place beforehand and the precise data is not being released.

"Nor has he taken a public stand on the value of full employment " What a delusion! No one not even the hardest Labour left believes in the above claptrap. Jobs are going everywhere and academics are no exception. We do not need 50% going to universities-that is Zanu Labour, Bliar's pronouncement.

Who is this farthing bloke anyway?

He is a gastroenterologist, one of the best in Europe.

In reply to question of who is Michael Farthing Yes, he's a gastroenterologist by training but his previous job was relatively short - principal of St George's Medical School in Tooting London, now known as St Georges University of London. This is a stand alone medical/biomedical school with no humanities content. During this time the main thrust was to find another institution to merge with. This was unsuccessful. One of his senior team at St Georges is now moving to ...guess where - Sussex University.

@Antigone. I do not think you recognise quality when you see it. Farthing is of the highest calibre Gastroenterologist and many are surprised why he did not opt for the lucrative Harley Street Partice where he can earn easily a million per year. Why he wwent to Sussex to preside over a declining institution full of deadwood academics , we are puzzled.

My difficulty is the perhaps old fashioned view that thoughtful disciplines art philosophy history and english especially need to be protected against the dictate of market forces. This is not specific to Sussex, although I would be especially sad to see cuts in philosophy and literature there. Over the last couple of decades there has been a fundamental shift in what education is about and for. Education has become increasingly pragmatic and industry driven. Now while I don't dispute the necessity of creating the kind of work force needed, shouldn't there be a bit more to it than that? What about critical, reflective culture? I hope I am not being elitist in being worried that if it isn't popular it doesn't happen. Some disciplines are unpopular because they are hard challenging and thought provoking. .It is important to keep universal access to these disciplines open. Or what do we have, a nation of shopkeepers that, lets face it, don't keep shop that well! It worries me in debates like this (and they are increasingly common) that the dominant concern tends to centre round the competence and expense of governance and people's worries about their own futures.These are valid concerns and I don't dismiss them but what about the future of education more broadly? What and who is it for? I'm not hearing much about the cultural implications of cutting the humanities as soon as things get tough and the critical import of so doing.I mean can critical thought really be critical if it is constantly worried about next years funding? What are the implications of uncritical culture politically? I thought the guy talking about social capital had a good point though, even if the calculation needs recalculating.

A nation of shop assistants more like. However, in view of the massive cuts at KCL, Leeds, etc, it may be that Sussex is getting off lightly.

Yes well, I was trying not to be cruel. However, the point remains-why so little concern about what cutting the reflective disciplines might do to the kind of knowledge you can produce? Or is shop assistant about it?