 |
 |
These are the culprits - http://www.internet-exchange.co.uk/home.asp?section=communications There's nothing in the website that makes the user think that they charge for every breath one takes - in dreadful environments - how dare these people tell users they charge for emails and that "they are not a charity" when they are using library premises ! It's not a joke - other CILIP in London librarians say why don't I "just" go over to another borough - it's not acceptable. In the meantime, at CILIP members' room there are reports (in which 8 users have their "oil paintings" portrayed for a LearnDirect/UFI report - telling us how wonderful and flexible all of this "learning" is - how the courses are readily available to "enhance their skills" and how they can "come and go" - There is also a UFI conference video with Bob Mckee delivering a paper -and so on - everyone singing praises to mediocrity - I just wonder if the people who write these things (apart from the 8 who have their oil paintings included in the UFI strategic plan / report) can possibly know what it's like at the chalk face. Pages and pages of responses and consultation of course - Emilce >From: "Callan, Mark" <[log in to unmask]> >To: "Emilce Rees" <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: RE: Pseudo Training and Education >Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:22:40 +0100 > >Righteous anger, a wonderful thing - you make me realise how apathetic I >have become... "Window dressing and low expectations" pretty much sums up >the political state we've got ourselves into. Or no, actually: that should >read "fake expectations". > >"Is bad provision better than no provision?" Isn't it rather that bad >provision is the façade for no provision? Were there no provision we might >get sufficiently motivated to insist on provision. > >Please, somebody, tell us what we can do about all this. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lis-educ: Library services for education >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Emilce Rees >Sent: 26 July 2005 13:03 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Pseudo Training and Education > > >Having just had another Third World (stained chairs, just a chipped painted >block of blue counter as desks, with no leg space) experience with my oh so >with it "Learn Direct" provider at my local library (which wants me to >complete endless forms and stupid learning agreements when all I want, to >do their courses - which incidentally do not even begin to reflect what the >LearnDirect brochure promises). I just wonder what librarians are doing >about the pathetic standards (and the low expectations and time wasting >involved) offered by middle course providers (working under several covers, >mainly in public libraries or career centres). In the meantime, while >nobody seems to understand that all we need is a user name and password and >get allowed access to PCs (which has become almost impossible in the part >of London where I live) LearnDirect claims in their pages/related bumph >that they are going from strength to strength. > >It is, of course, the duty of "bureaucrauts" to confuse and make matters >opaque so that they show themselves in a "clever" light (ECDL was piloted >at UCL, quite a long time ago, and there was none of the nonsense that the >people involved with it submerge users into). > >Unrelated (or perhaps not) Oxford Brookes is closing their Modern Languages >degrees (except French). > >Is the bureaucracy, window dressing and low expectations (in provision and >attainment, where ECDL, equivalent to GCSE, is presented as worth having) >and the closure of university degrees unrelated (plus librarians in local >libraries failing to understand that it's my user's right to send or >receive attachments for example) completely unrelated ? Perhaps not. > >Is bad provision better that no provision at all ? > >Can we do something about this ? > > > >LEGAL INFORMATION >Information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure >under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information is >legally exempt, the confidentiality of this e-mail and your reply cannot be >guaranteed. >Unless expressly stated otherwise, the information contained in this e-mail >& any files transmitted with it are intended for Emilce Rees >([log in to unmask]) only. If you are not the intended recipient you >must not copy, distribute, or take any action or reliance upon it. If you >have received this e-mail in error, you should notify the Callan, Mark >([log in to unmask]) immediately and delete this email. Any >unauthorised disclosure of the information contained in this e-mail is >strictly prohibited. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of >the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Tyne Metropolitan >College unless explicitly stated otherwise. >This e-mail and attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving >Tyne Metropolitan College. Tyne Metropolitan College will not be liable for >any losses as a result of any viruses being passed on. > >26/7/2005 > >