Bournemouth head takes the reins at City

This is a scary development, given Bournemouth's recent history with poor employee relations. Especially troubling has been its stance in the Paul Buckland case, involving the underhanded changing of marks without Prof Buckland's consent. I hope Prof Curran doesn't continue this same approach to governing that he used at Bournemouth.

Please ignore the previous poster's comment. This is a good appointment as Curran was not entirely responsible at Bournemouth's probems in a departmental matter. But Buckland did not twist the tail of the tiger by opening up a web page in Curran's name and rubbishing him!

I can only say that under Prof Curran's watch, the University continued to oppose Prof Buckland's case in the ET, EAT and Court of Appeals instead of doing the right thing and admitting wrongdoing. When a V-C is able to demonstrate the courage needed to admit a mistake, that is the sign of good leadership.

" Demonstration od courage needed", a bit rich coming from an American who ran away to hide in his country rather than staying in Britain and facing the judgement and the arm of the law. As I said prof Buckland is an honourable man did not indeulge in the wickedness of creating a web site called Curran and rubbishing him.

Again I am forced to comment when I prefer to keep out of the detail, but I certainly did not open a web page in Curran's name and at no stage have I directly criticised any individual, other than those directly involved in the marking scandal, at Bournemouth and then only in the context of the Courts. Perhaps Bournemouth University will benefit from its recent changes in management, and I wish Professor Curran the best in his move to City.

And I suppose that it was "wicked" for the American journalist from the Telegraph to have published the MP Scandal story? Just as it was wicked for me to have been the first source to have published the National Student Survey Scandal story, External Examiner Scandal story, and recordings revealing the conduct of public officials at Kingston University in their own words and with their own voices. Why does it seem to take an American to come along in order to bring to light "embarrassing" matters in the public interest in Britain? Could it be because some Brits seem to be of the belief that it is only the rest of the world that is capable of dishonesty?

Hey, Paul Curran was a good catch for Bournemouth, and they'll be sad that he's off - he took the University is new directions that not everyone there was happy with, but his work should see them in good stead. We shouldn't get distracted by people in different time zones who get to comment first on these stories - This is about Prof Curran, not Dr Fredrics - there are strands for that...

@Sumum Bonum -- I refer you and others to the following article describing the overwhelming vote of no-confidence that was taken in Prof Curran's leadership by members of UCU. -- http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=3186 -- Perhaps there was a little problem that goes beyond the scope of what a mere person in a "different time zone" can comment upon.

@Paul Buckland. Sure you did not open up a web page in the name of Prof Curran, and you are a very honourable man. That is what I posted. You did not do unlike the person who casts aspersion on Prof Curran here, and who opened a web page in the name of the VC of Kingston U who sacked him, and wrote rubbish there. A bit rich coming from this American academic who skipped this country not facing the court's judgement

@Sumum Bonum . The comment about this run away American had to made because he started his first posting accusing Prof Curran. Again, a bit rich coming from this American academic who skipped this country not facing the court's judgement.

....that does not lead to a post by Howard Frederics that is about Howard Frederics. Really I do. It's just relentless.

If this Fredrics guy has any sense he should simply fade way, having left this country. He makes his presence from time to time by postings in starnds to draw attention to him and to continue his ridiculous vendentta. There are plenty of cases where tenures were refused to rpofessors in his country and he could spend his time in writing about them.

As a member fo BU's staff who has suffered under Curran's ruthless regime and watched colleagues careers, health and personal lives systematically being destroyed I am delighted that he has finally found a new job. That he has been relentless in his pursuance of his own career goals at the expense of his staff will come as no great surprise to anyone who has ever worked with him. Curran has spent the past two years seeking posts at other universities - Southampton wisley declined his offer of service last year - giving a lie to his contention that he was ever commited to BU. There will be few who regret Curran's leaving, Bournemouth Students Union overwhelmingly passed a vote of no confidence in Curran three years ago, last year UCU followed suit and yesterday offices throughout the campus celebrated. A party is being planned ... I have not encountered a single colleague who is sad to see Curran go - or indeed has a good word for him.

@Bournemouth University Academic. You should have left the University and should have taken up a job elsewhere. Academics like you and those who post fuming and blaming are never happy anywhere. Wait, another VC will arrive and the history repeats again. The problem with the heavily unionised and deluded academics these days are that they are looking for Shangrilla. Grow up and accept that Management manage. As for him trying positions elsewhere, who would want to work with BU staff anyway? I know BU well and the staff want to stay for life there., and in departments I know , no one has left, and no one wants to improve academically, and there lies the problem. BU Student Union? One of the militatant unions in this country. BU is a place preferred by those who retire!

It is interesting that you claim to know BU. I don't recognise your description of its staff and as for your claim that SUBU is one of the militant student unions, well, we all laughed at that. I find it odd that you make an attack on me but no defence of Curran - although of course I recognise that he is indefensible. Curran claimed to be committed to taking BU through his strategic plan yet all the while he was busy bailing out. I too know BU well and I know well staff that have have left, desperate, demoralised and defeated by Curran's relentless drive to manipulate its ratings so that he can claim credit. He will not be missed and many of us here pity City University staff.

Bournemouth U is a boring place. The person who calls himself as Bournemouth Academic is one of the multitude of under-achieving
academics that Bournemouth has in plenty. I moved to Southampton U after 2nd year, after realising that the quality of academics in Bournemouth U who have been there for years is the problem. As for the VC, the university had its VC it deserved and will get the VC it deserves, which means a similar kind of VC. Who eklse will come to this boring place?

You seem to miss the point. For you, perhaps a long-staying academic bordering a deadwood class, any stone thrown at VC is a good game. You seem to have never realised that as for as the students are concerned, the quality of the academic staff matters as " An ex-student" says. There you are. You get the VC you deserve and the students you deserve. You will get Curran mark2. That I am sure.

@To Bournemouth University Academic: I have had experience now of eight University Vice-Chancellors. To a man and a woman, they are only interested in two things: (a) their knighthood/damehood and (b) to get onto the parasitical quangocracy after they retire. Hence their supine acceptance of everything they are ordered to do by the Government.

I remember that one of your Vice-Chancellors was formerly Dean at my university (MMU) - dreadful person she was.

Curran did good things at BU...he provided clear direction and solid leadership, although it must be said, he lacked the people skills to win hearts and minds, you can't argue with what he achieved. BU is in a better place than it was five years ago. It has a clear future direction and lots of new staff well placed to deliver that future.

Curran claimed credit for a number of achievements that were the result of work done before he took up his post. Ironically, many of the academics whose work led to BUs’ recent achievements were made redundant. Good things? Clear direction? Please expand. Solid leadership? We experienced ruthless bullying and self promoting aggrandisement. Curran did not even have the decency or integrity to tell the Board (that he has left high and dry) that he was going to City until it was announced on their website on Wednesday – you can imagine how happy they are. The recent judgements against Curran et al., of which there are more in the pipeline, speak to his leadership and style of management. Curran’s supporter may claim that he was good for BU, but we who work here don’t see the evidence. Time will tell how well he is received by City staff and students. I hope they are happy that City has provided an expensive flat as part of his package, in its current financial state I imagine not. We however are happy to see the back of him.
@ Walter, sadly you are probably right.

Regardless of how you feel about Paul as a person you have to step back and ask is BU better off then it was before he joined?

The answer in some respects is yes! In other aspects no! BU is now fundamentally mispositioned in the slipping sands that have become HE funding.

As the government attempts to re-focus University activity toward student employability and research with economic impact.

BU stands in an unenviable position. Research funding pulling one way and Student employability in the other and something has to give.

BU will never be a research intensive university, it just doesn't do the right type of research to naturally attract the kind of funding it needs to break through.

Don't get me wrong, Paul has improved the portfolio, but the point here is that its always going to be an up hill struggle.

At which point (when you accept this) you have to ask yourself - do you want to play the game everyone else is playing, or strike out in a uniquely BU direction and really be an innovative University.

BU strength has always lied in its excellent teaching with it strong ties to business and the public sector. That is what set it apart in the past and that is what will keep it in business in the future. To think other wise is just foolish.

To survive in this new reality universities of every description will have to find there niche. Market homogenisation isn't the answer - After all it stupid to think that every university can be or should be research led.

What BU needs is a VC with a different type of vision and leadership, one that aligns with its values and also its strengths. After all successful businesses (and that's what BU is (a business) aren't about copying everyone else.

They are about creating an offer which will attract customers and clients alike to sustaining the business. Lets hope they choose a Business leader next...

One that's sensitive to the importance of teaching and research, one who also understands the economic imperatives of being in Business.

And makes sure that teaching and research aren't treated as separate things, but instead inform each other. One that see's the importance in vocational degrees with strong business ties.

One that realises teaching in the old ways will not raise enough income to sustain and grow the business, one that sees a future in new technologies and innovation and finally one that respects the most valuable asset of all, the staff

Lets hope...

Two opinions. Bournemouth Academic is spitting blood and ranting about the villainy of Prof Curran who made the place worse. Another Bournemouth Academic says Prof Curran made the place better. For what I heard he is a reputed scientist held in high regard. He is moving to City U an old university and not the pathetic MMU or the University in the sea backwater which is a new university in the last 50 of the Times League table. As for Bournemouth Academic , this person is destined to stay in this sea backwater for years to come, and hence should improve his outlook it appears that this person cannot leave this place. As for Walter Cairns of MMU, well we know that MMU is a Met. That explains it.

@ Bournemouth Academic. We have not been bullied..being told to mark student work within three weeks and do research or enterprise are perfectly fair things to ask of academics. Why would you work in higher education if these are such offensive things to be involved with?

As I said in my previous post the management of change has been been poor, because Curran failed to win hearts and minds, but the direction of travel has been correct. I'm guessing you are one of the moaners - who wasn't submitted to the RAE, never generates any enterprise income and moans about teaching workloads. Perhaps its time to move on...

@Yippy -- I agree that it is good for universities to establish a market niche based on what they're good at (i.e. building upon strengths). But it is also possible to change the nature of a university so that it becomes good at something else, either in addition to or instead of its historical strengths. I would hate to think that all universities are doomed to remain as they are and unable to achieve something different or better if there is the will and resources to do so. It just takes time. ---- That having been said, the real issue of importance here is not merely whether or not a V-C helps a university to achieve its business aims/mission, but rather whether or not in doing so, a V-C seeks to treat its staff justly, fairly and with dignity. To me, that is the greater measure of success.

@Another Bournemouth Academic. You have summed up well what I heard about BU and prof Curran. The likes of @Bournemouth Academic are in majority in nall post-92 and in a few pre-92 universities. They are the UCU fodder, professional ranters, cannot improve themselves and they always look for a messiah who will not question their 3 day a week presence in their offices, give them a rise of 25% per year with no evidence of any delivery et.. etc.. They will not move on. They should be sacked.

As for the American who ran away after the judgement went against him for
being a cyber bully, ignore him.

@Yippy is right in almost all of what she or he says and clearly knows BU well - BU is most certainly mis-positioned but we are hopeful that a new VC will revisit Curran's strategic plan - and perhaps make more effort to win hearts and minds. @ Another Bournemouth Academic - I have never failed to meet the Three Week Turn Around or TWAT as is known in most Schools and am happy to have recently registered my PhD. I am one of the more recently appointed academics to BU and was shocked to discover the low morale amongst staff, anger amongst students, particularly Business School students who have protested recently about lack of contact and redundancies and the general dislike/distrust of the VC. His own marketing department describes him as self-promoting. His salary was doubled within 18 months of his joining BU, perhaps some people feel he has been worth the money... @ Hello Academics – I don’t understand your comments regarding working practices. At BU we are required to engage in enterprise, knowledge transfer partnerships, research and teaching – in that order of priority. I enjoy the challenges of my job, especially teaching some of the most able, committed, hardworking and charming students of all ages and nationalities. Even if my family ask, as they often do, why I must work evenings and weekends to keep up. 3 day weeks? 25% salary rise - I don’t have the energy to laugh. The Media and Tourism Schools at BU are world class. They were before Curran arrived and they have survived the ravages of his strategic business plan. Sadly the Business and Law School that was and Conservation Sciences have not. A better place? Not many of us think so. But we are looking forward keenly to the appointment of a new VC . Finally, I note that no one has defended Curran’s behaviour in relation to his bolting, or the damage he has wreaked on employer/employee relations at BU.

@Bournemouth Academic. So you do not have a PhD and hence BU is the only place for you as most post-92s these days expect their applicants to have PhD. If I were you, I would shut up and not rant. As for your comment, "I am one of the more recently appointed academics to BU and was shocked to discover the low morale amongst staff..", You could move if you had a PhD, and since you are a simple Mr or Ms and not a Dr best to keep your head down. Otherwise, you need to get familiarise with the job centres at Poole. All VCs in post-92s work the same way, and you are simply deluded.

@ Bournemouth Academic - Here here. Ignore @To Bournemouth Academic... he/she seems to have got their nickers in a twist ;)

@What does it matter. You mean "hear, Hera"? Knickers in a twist the way you got twisted with words? Another one with no PhD?

We need a preview facility here! words get jumbled. But these days difficult to find lecturers with no PhDs. May be best if "Bournemouth Academic " cools down and get the PhD regisered in a better university, not at BU.

No just a learning disability! I decided not to use my screen reader as I didn't realise I was being marked in these informal surroundings!

Either way it doesn't matter... I am a successful academic who publishes.... and has a PhD!

But then again a PhD isn't the be all and end all of the world. Life has taught me there are far more important things.

Like dignity and respect for others, however, that appears to have been lost in this thread.

@What does it matter: "decided not to use my screen reader as I didn't realise I was being marked in these informal surroundings!" No problem ! I suppose you are another of those who like to see a messiah arriving to BU as a VC, just like the Bournemouth Academic prattles hyperventilating about Prof Curran. Rest assured, a VC will arrive who will make Prof Curran a saint in comparison! It is to his/her benefit Bournemouth Academic gets real and knuckle down to get his marking done within 3 weeks and deliver well prepared lectures. If continues with the attitude exhibited in postings here, the new VC will wish him/her goodbye!

@ Bournemouth Academic I'm amazed you got appointed without a PhD. Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that you hope the next VC changes the strategic direction? If so what direction would you prefer? Our progress over the last five years has been good and we should be proud of it. Surely a change of direction would be very damaging and result in more change. @ It does matter - if Bournemouth Academic works in either the Media School or Tourism School at BU, then there is no better University to do study or work at.

@Another Bournemouth Academic. I am more than amazed that Bournemouth Academic, instead of considering how lucky he/she was for being appointed without a PhD, and thus instead of keeping the head down until the PhD is regsitered and completed ( many do not even reach the stage of being a PhD candidate and fall on the way side), shoots from the hip. BU stands now at 58 in the Times League table, not bad for a post-92. Well, this novice will not go very far.

Around 36% of academics at BU have a doctorate. Lower than average, but hardly surprising since many of its most successful subjects are in vocational fields in which PhDs are rare and in some cases inappropriate. In 2008, Curran stated an ambition of increasing this to 60%. A fair enough aspiration, unless you consider that he demanded it by 2012, effectively meaning that 200 academics should either somehow get a PhD in 4 years, or be sacked and replaced by someone who does, even if they are pivotal to delivering a subject. This wrecked many courses, and is an example of good idea with absurd constraints, and bad implementation through a management paralysed from threats and intimidation which was actively fostered by Curran.
Many staff are enrolled on PhDs, but few get more than 1 hour of remission per week. I'd like to see anyone complete a PhD with one hour per week in four years. Its lunacy. But then, within this same time frame, this VC did think that a 400% increase in enterprise was a reasonable target!

@ BeeEwee: "Many staff are enrolled on PhDs, but few get more than 1 hour of remission per week. I'd like to see anyone complete a PhD with one hour per week in four years" There are weekends, a hours in weekdays, Summer etc.. and I have seen academics completing the PhD in 4 years. You are simply a bunch of lackeys.

Hello BeeEwe. The ones who moan and complain about not getting time for PhD ( they do not try hard this UCU fodder), should quit and apply to local colleges. Curran at least gave 4 years. This crowd should have been asked to reapply for their positions stipulating PhD requirement. The new VC should get rid of these non-PhD moaners. There are enough young PhDs to fill their positions.

@ BeeEwe name me an area at BU where a PhD would be inappropriate? I can't think of a subject and I work in one of those vocational areas you name. Absurd constraints? Curran made clear he wanted staff to have/get PhDs pretty much from the moment he arrived in 2005. That gave/gives staff 7 years for staff to get with the programme. With hard work that's very possible. The problem is some people have chosen to fight and moan instead of getting on with the job of becoming an academic.

Another Bournemouth Academic makes a good point when he/she says that Paul Curran failed to win the hearts and minds of staff. Initially at least many of the staff bought into Paul's 'dream the dream' approach but later became disenchanted. Staff began to realise that some of the claims that Paul was making about the University's achievements were inaccurate. For example, Paul claimed that the University had made huge strides in research and made much of Bournemouth's apparent No. 1 position in the Guardian League table. However, he failed to tell the staff and the public that the Guardian league table explicitly excludes research related criteria. More importantly, when staff scrutinised the figures that had been supplied by Bournemouth to the Guardian via HESA, a number of them appeared to be inaccurate in a direction which favoured the University. Clearly this did little to convince Bournemouth's staff that Paul had really achieved what he claimed to have achieved and it also left many of them worried that Bournemouth's false position in the Guardian table would eventually be found out with disastorous consequences for the staff and the University. Paul has also been selective in the league tables which he has chosen to use as indicators of Bournemouth's achievements. If one looks at a league table which actually includes research criteria like the Sunday Times, it is apparent that Bournemouth's position has actually dropped to 68th. There are a number of additional examples of what could politely be described as 'poor representation' of the facts which contributed to Paul Curran;s failure to win the hearts and minds of staff at Bournemouth. We also need to consider why Paul has chosen to leave Bournemouth at this time? I suspect that his decision is based on a number of factors and these might include HEFCE cuts in the teaching grant and their recent decision to more narrowly focus QR (i.e. research) funding to top performing research universities (which Bournemouth patently is not). But Paul is a very intelligent and astute person who is unlikely to believe his own PR spin and his decision may well have been prompted by his realisation that while making some progress, his Bournemouth experiment has in reality been largely a failure.

In their higher education supplement of October 2009, Current Archaeology (essentially one of the key "trade" publications for my particular specialsm) described Bournemouth as ..."a university that does not quite know whether it is an academic institution or a business organisation gone wrong." That's what Paul Curran has done for the standing of Bournemouth University in my industry. Nice one Prof. Now shut the door behind you.

It does seem strange that these people at the topmost rungs of the managerial ladder seem to be measured by their peers in a way that others cannot always make sense of. I've always been bemused by the now celebrated Rick Trainor of KCL, who served formerly as a VC at Greenwich (2000-2004). Greenwich ranked at 90 in the 2001 RAE and 100 in 2008.

BTW, maybe it would be foolish to suggest that the rather unpleasant stuff appearing here from 'To Bournemouth University Academic', 'An ex-student', 'To Bournemouth Academic', 'Another Bournemouth Academic', 'It does matter' (and his best mate 'To It does matter'), 'Wee BeeEwe' and 'Not for you!' is all actually composed by the same person, but my goodness these posts produce a surprisingly harmonious ensemble in their own very special way. Perhaps some basic training in courtesy wouldn't go amiss?

"Bournemouth University Academic', 'An ex-student', 'To Bournemouth Academic', 'Another Bournemouth Academic', 'It does matter' (and his best mate 'To It does matter'), 'Wee BeeEwe' and 'Not for you!' is all actually composed by the same person,.."

Welcome Madam Sherlock Holmes! You deserve Lt Columbo Prize!.

@ Joanna is our Goddess Joanna Lumley! I have my kukri with me if any one criticises our Goddess Joanna. Om Kali!

'Joanna', you are absolutely correct to identity a single, not so hidden, hand holding the poison pen, despite the various nom-deplumes. He (it is indeed a ‘he’) is the same person who has been commenting on the THE Blog since the start of the London Met saga – and a good few know exactly who he is. He has, at every opportunity, jumped in to discussions to tell us why this, or that, particular post-92 university is: bad; run by UCU militants; has 'deadwood' staff who can't go anywhere else; takes students who don't belong in university; takes too many international students; etc, etc. Different articles - same bile time after time. One of his favourite, and rather obvious foils, is to post as an 'ex-student' of whichever university that is currently in his sights, and then immediately post under another name to 'agree' with his own rubbish. A very sad man indeed... but hey, I've now given him the opportunity to add a few more schizophrenic postings :-)

Thanks very much for clarifying that: it's nice to know that this site isn't completely awash with people overflowing with bile. I see there has been similar trouble on a parallel thread on the article 'An essential equation: saving jobs is a question of fractions for UCU at Sussex'--but then again, maybe there's more than one troll at work here. Somebody over there seems to be most insistent that academics should simply resign themselves to swallowing the medicine that people in other lines of work are also required to take, and that anybody who demurs is demonstrating that they have been in their job too long or that they consider themselves entitled to have their jobs protected while honest working-class folk lose their. A strangely defeatist and self-defeating attitude, I must say. Many of the catchphrases about moaners and dead wood seem to be identical.

All the more reason for THE to require that posters give their real names.

I'm afraid Madam Sherlock Holmes is wrong! I was enjoying a debate, rarely had internally, about why Currans strategic direction was so repulsive to the UCU crowd. Looks like thats over.

While many of the postings on this thread contain the same juvenile petulance (e.g. to Bournemouth Academic, it does matter, weebeeewe etc), indicating that they emanate from the same ill informed source, the posting of @Another Bournemouth Academic has a different quality suggesting a different originator who is genuinely seeking a debate about Paul Curran. As some of the contributors to this thread appear to place great store in possession of a PhD (?!) let me make clear that I gained my PhD long before Curran came to BU. I also have scores of research publications and my RAE rating was one of the highest within my UoA in RAE2008 and significantly above BU's average across UoAs. In addition I have a substantive teaching load. Also I am not a member of UCU. Paul Curran's appointment as VC had zero impact on my research activity, I have continued just as I did for many years before Curran arrived. Now to my point: it should be clear to even the most gullible member of BU that Curran used his time at the university to market himself in order to facilitate his move to a better university. Consider the facts: From the outset Curran sought to rubbish the university (if you doubt this put his name into google and you will find many hits for 'Ratner VC trashes his university'). While it would have been perfectly reasonable for Curran to have criticised the University internally, what was his motive for rubbishing the university in the media? Even the most naive reader of this thread must recognise that this was the beginning of Curran's self promotional marketing campaign aimed an improving his public profile and ultimatey securing a better job for himself. What followed was a string of claims about phoney 'achievements' which are largely based on misrepresentation, selective reporting, erroneous data and downright deception. Some may feel that in promoting himself, he has indirectly promoted the university and this has been to the advantage of BU as a whole. However even if this were true, do we really want to promote ourselves on the basis of misrepresentation and deceit?

Come on guys . I work in Bournemouth University, and have a PhD. This university is not that bad compared to a few universities which are making news recently. Whatever we disagree, we agree I think that the university did not misrepresent the student data returns , which is much more serious. As for ill-informed sources, we should learn not to believe the cliams and counter claims we read in these threads

Those using this thread for a genuine exchange of views about this serious matter should note that the person posting as @not for you, @wee bee ewe, @it does matter, @admin staff 101, @to bournemouth academic is not an academic at Bournemouth University. Indeed the lack of detailed knowledge of universities evident in his postings suggest that he is not an academic at all. He has also been posting similar ill informed nonsense on the Sussex redundancies thread. He repeats the same bile about academics being lazy, wingeing wastes of space and will engage in personal attacks on posters at every opportunity. It appears that he is driven by a profound sense of personal inadequacy and self loathing which I suspect has a sexual basis. Much of his bile is directed at UCU and their attempts to resist the current wave of academic redundancies - redundancies which he welcomes. Fortunately the moronic content of his postings makes him instantly recognisable and I have made it my mission to 'out' him at every opportunity. Please don't allow him to upset you as that is precisely what he wants. If he posts on this thread again comfort yourself with the knowledge that he is an inadequate misfit with the intellectual capacity of a slug who is in reality desperately in need of love and affection; who else would spend 52 weeks of the year posting to threads on matters about which they have no personal involvement?

Sadly, the Bournemouth approach is being exported elsewhere. See the letter below which has appeared in this week's printed version of the THE:

"Your article "Bournemouth academic's constructive dismissal claim upheld" (www.timeshighereducation.co.uk, 26 February) has generated a great deal of comment.
Several of the views expressed dwell on the issue of academic standards, but do not acknowledge that Paul Buckland failed to adhere to our marking procedures and protocols; that he refused to cooperate with an internal academic inquiry into the matter; and that crucially, his marking was not supported by three independent external examiners, all experts in their field.

Bournemouth University lost the case in the Court of Appeal not on the matter of academic quality, over-marking or so-called "dumbing down", but because of the way in which the chair of the examining board dealt with Buckland. Under contract law, a breach of contract, once committed, cannot be fixed.

Nick Petford
Pro vice-chancellor
Bournemouth University"

If anyone cares to read either the verdict of the Appeal Court, or the documentation available at
<http://www.mepenguin.com/pcb/course_review.pdf >, they may come to a different interpretation.

What's your point there Prof. Buckland? Are you telling us that if you'd marked the exam papers correctly in the first place, then none of the subsequent nonsense would have occurred and you'd still be in a job?

to W'uh?
what are you on about? An academic of the calibre and dedication of Buckland has not marked correctly his own exam papers? Or is correctly the equivalent of high marks and passes to all paying customers? Anyway the info is on the www and people can read and form their own conclusions.

@W'uh's comments demonstrate his/her ignorance of the facts. The facts are that the exam board confirmed Paul Buckland's marks and thereby confirmed that he had marked the exam scripts correctly. It was only later that managers, fearful of negative student feedback, decided to remark the scripts and pass failed students. This despicable act was one of a catalogue of such acts which took place under Paul Curran and is symptomatic of the arrogant and shameless management of BU under his leadeship. Before making his/her next posting, perhaps W'uh might consider acquainting themselves with the facts.

Having ready through the link kindly supplied by Prof. Buckland, at no point can I find the paragraph stating that either he, or the second marker, made no errors in the initial marking. The legal wrangle appears to be that once uncovered, apparent errors were not handled correctly and due process was not followed when investigating and correcting them. Of course the Catch 22 of the whole situation is that if due process had have been followed, then any errors would never have come to light in the first place. If a second marker does not find or report errors by the first marker, then an exam board would have no reason to do other than ratify the results. It seems that in this instance, the exam board were not in full possession of the facts at that point. Let us remind ourselves that the corrected (as opposed to purely remarked) papers were scrutinised by the appropriate external body and the corrected marks were agreed - not because the initial marking had been unduly harsh, but because the initial and second marking had been incorrect. All of the legal wrangling is not about whether Prof Buckland made errors in marking, but about the subsequent failure of the university to follow due process, which was quite rightly investigated. In point of fact, I do agree that Prof. Buckland had a strong case regarding the lack of due process and I think that the eventual outcome in his favour is justified and correct. I deplore the fact that he was forced into a stressful, expensive and drawn-out legal argument to force the university to acknowledge its procedural shortcomings. However, the elephant in the room is that if there had been no grounds for complaint in the first place, then none of the subsequent acrimony would have occurred. Prof. Buckland is a respected and eminent academic. I fail to see how the university would have gained by clawing back what must amount to a fraction of a percentage in overall stats, whilst losing a staff member of Prof. Buckland’s calibre. It seems illogical to suggest that the university was ever going to be at some sort of advantage.

to W'uh? Fails became passes and Buckland questioned this, so fault was picked post hoc. Why hasn’t Bournemouth released the remarked scripts suitably anonymised for all to see? And why did they remark only the fails? It seems to me that if staff or students were the priority here all this would have never happened.

to W'uh? Fails became passes and Buckland questioned this, so fault was picked post hoc. Why hasn’t Bournemouth released the remarked scripts suitably anonymised for all to see? And why did they remark only the fails? It seems to me that if staff or students were the priority here all this would have never happened.

I reiterate - how could the university have benefitted from the revised passes in any substantial way? According to reports, these were fourteen second year individuals from a student body of 10,000+ undergraduates. I make that a percentage gain in the pass rate that doesn't register anywhere near the decimal point. Could it not just be that errors had been made and that once discovered, they had to be remedied? What would have happened if the errors had been disregarded once discovered, and allowed to stand? I can understand why Prof. Buckland chose not to be involved in the remedy process, but I do not agree that his ire at being corrected is substantive evidence that there were no grounds for correction. Given that Prof. Buckland's entirely correct case was concerned with a failure to follow due process, could anyone point me to the correct process for releasing marked exam papers for public scrutiny? Is there a precedent for this? And does external ratification of the corrected papers not have anyone's confidence?

@W'uh appears to miss the point that the dumbing down evident in the Buckland case is symptomatic of the league table obsessed approach of the management under Paul Curran. Under Curran's leadership managers throughout the University were encouraged to do all that they could to inflate BU's position in the league tables and this included the lowering of academic standards in conjunction with a number of additional despicable manipulations. Collectively these have inflated Bournemouth's position in the Guardian table. It is only now, with Curran's pending move to a better university, that we see that the true purpose of this shameless misconduct was for Curran to market himself in to a better job. Yes external ratification of exam papers does carry weight - the external examiners at the original examination board ratified Buckland's marks. Note also that the employment tribunal did find that Bournemouth's management had lowered its academic standards and that conclusion was supported by the Court of Appeal (see Geoffrey Alderman's letter to the Times Higher on this site)

So Professor, what you have been posting is a good advert for your university, and good pointers to prospective staff and students?

@To BUProf's response is typical of the kind of self serving, spineless individuals who now populate our universities and give Curran and his like the licence to behave as they do. Anyone who believes that a university should market itself on the basis of deceit, misrepresentation and malpractice is both dishonest and foolish. Ultimately that behaviour will be exposed as it has been in this case and it is the duty of academics to expose such malpractice rather than collude in it by remaining silent.

I think that all those who are lambasting prof. Buckland are missing the point. Even if Buckland had made 1,000 errors in his marking, it would have been unethical - and, in my view, illegal - to increase the marks across the board. Look, I know what I'm talking about, having been victimised myself for exposing such practices at my own institution (which were even worse than in prof. Buckland's case).

As far as I understand it the change of marks had nothing to do with mistakes. This was the excuse given to justify making the fails passes. I agree that the larger picture is relevant, but so is the detail.

What is BUProf talking about? Does he not remember when our management told us that each time we fail a student we lose £9000? If all the staff were to follow Buckland's example where would we find the money to build the new 'Curran Building'? What people like him fail to realise is that Bournemouth University is a business and we are in the business of selling degrees. A dinosaur like BUProf would never be able to recognise the progress the university has made under Paul Curran to prepare us for the introduction of variable fees: £12000 for a first; £10,000 for a 2i; £8000 for a 2ii and a special discount price of £2000 for a third all delivered in our new fast track delivery mode of 3 weeks.

@BUProf - You and I are most certainly in agreement that Bournemouth will (hopefully) be a more honest and happier place overall without Prof Curran's dubious services. I only hope that Them Upstairs do not see fit to appoint someone cut from the same cloth as his replacement. The current overall culture should be neither envied nor emulated. @Walter Cairns - You have been misinforned. All marks were not increased across the board. A subset of papers from one exam were found to have been incorrectly marked, after all papers from that exam were reviewed. Those papers, and those alone, were corrected and submitted for external scrutiny. One paper was still agreed (by all involved) to be a fail, even after marks were corrected. @Dodo - The entire process was instigated by marking mistakes. If the papers had been reviewed and no errors found, then the correction of marks would not have occurred. The process would have halted at that point and Prof Buckland would still be in employment. The bigger picture is that the university had nothing to gain by passing fourteen more people than they would have otherwise. It did not boost the university's performance stats in any significant way - certainly not enough to boost them up a single place in any form of league table. The loss of Prof Buckland would have been painful and better avoided. The university actually had more to gain by sweeping the marking errors under the carpet and carrying on about its business. Indeed, this would have been far more Prof Curran's style; I suspect the situation reached terminal velocity before he had time to intervene. Leaving fourteen students with an unsubstantiated feeling of injustice certainly would have been far easier to deal with. After this episode, the cynical part of me assumes that this the direction the university will take, should any suspicions arise about the quality of marking in future.

I can only hope that the negative publicity surrounding the Buckland case and Paul Curran's resignation does not impede the construction of 'Curran House'. This was to be the location of the new Office of Vice Chancellor (OVC) suite and would have contained the facilities enjoyed by our current VC Prof Curran (jacuzzi, massaging couch, range of executive toys, spacious offices, executive toilet and shower etc) plus the helicoper pad and chauffeured limousine parking bay that Prof Curran was planning to have built had he remained at Bournemouth. It would be a great pity if Bournemouth's new VC were to be deprived of these essential facilities and I do worry that without them we may be unable to attract the right kind of person for the job. After all, shortly after his own appointment, Paul Curran spent £1000000 on the refurbishment of his OVC suite financed (quite properly in my view) by the dismissal of many useless academic staff. It seems unfair that the incoming VC should not be given the same opportunity and I for one will be pressing for the same arrangement to be offered to them. After all, in these economically difficult times we need to be sure that we have a properly motivated person leading our University.

Helicopter pad?? What utter tosh. Word is, that the entire Talbot Campus was to be levelled to make a runway for the landing of his executive Lear Jet. Being conveyed from Bournemouth International Airport in a perfumed sedan chair carried by staff members on the "At Risk" Register, was proving *such* a fag. Plus they kept claiming stress and leaving. You simply cannot get the flunkies these days.

Readers of this thread need to realise that academics have no business questioning management decisions concerning academic judgement. Managers should be free to bend or entirely ignore regulations as they see fit. Without this kind of management discretion, troublemakers like Buckland would have a case and be able to take it to court - then where would we be?
p.s. readers may wish to note that our exiting PVC Nick Petford is reported in the Times Higher as saying that he intends to start 'trimming' the academic staff when he arrives at Northampton. Good on yer Nick; great to see that you're going to continue the good work that you and Paul undertook at BU. I'm sure you'll be able to dispose of just as many lazy, whingeing academics there as you did here. And Nick, take no notice of the mean spirited contributors to this thread who are incapable of appreciating the tremendous contribution that you and Paul have made to developing our university. I will always remember your consummate tact and diplomacy as well as the erudite contributions you have made to the intellectual life of the university. Our loss is Northampton's gain.