It is only a suggestion but if sufficient institutions felt strongly
enough about this issue at a senior level, then a suggestion to the
Guardian that they were reviewing their advertising spend might produce
results.
Regards
David Ealey
Robson, Anne wrote:
> Dear Brian,
>
> Please add Sheffield Hallam University.
>
> We now have a sizeable group of institutions prepared to support joint action. It is clear from other responses that the concern has now extended beyond the specific elements highlighted in your proposed email, into wider concerns about the Guardian's overall methodology.
>
> Can I suggest that we do two things:
>
> 1. Re-word the email to highlight the extent of genuine concern across the sector about the Guardian's methodology and the extent to which it leads to a mis-representation of the performance of every institution. For example:
>
> 'We have previously raised concerns with you about the Guardian's leagure table methodology, and understood that genuine consultation on a way forward would take place. The flaws in your current approach mean it is impossible for you to produce a league table that will give prospective students valid information to support informed choice. There is a widespread concen that your methodology leads to mis-representation of the performance of every institution in the sector. This is an unacceptable position which we would like to resolve with you, as there is growing support for unilateral action by institutions which could make production of the league table untenable. Ultimately this is of no benefit either to you or to our prospective students.'
>
> 2. Agree what follow-up action we are prepared to take if we do not get a satisfactory response. Insisting on some form of 'health warning' may feel like a positive outcome, but it is unlikely to be taken seriously by the Guardian - no doubt the warning would be embedded very successfully in the small print!
> (a) How many institutions are willing to confirm they are prepared to embargo their data?
> (b) What level of support is there for other actions proposed?
>
> Regards,
> Anne
>
>
> Anne Robson
> Head of Planning
> Sheffield Hallam University
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Academic, financial or space planning in UK universities [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Marks
> Sent: 06 February 2007 13:11
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Joint response to Guardian
>
> Dear Brian
>
> Please add the University of Greenwich.
>
> We are also unhappy with their methodology and have expressed our concerns to them however we appreciate that they will go ahead regardless so would like to add our name to your response.
>
> Christine Couper
> Head of Planning and Statistics
> University of Greenwich
>
>
>
> Priority: NORMAL
> Date sent: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:59:53 +0000
> Send reply to: "Academic, financial or space planning in UK universities" <[log in to unmask]>
> From: Brian Oldham <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Joint response to Guardian
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>>Hello Judy,
>>
>>This is essentially the approach that I've taken. In our response (to
>>which I'm still waiting for a reply), King's reserved the right to
>>transfer numbers between Guardian subject groups, pending
>>clarification on how they used them.
>>
>>You might approve of Google Bombs - I could not possibly comment!
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>
>>Brian
>>
>>On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:41:59 -0000 Judy Evans
>><[log in to unmask]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dear Brian,
>>>
>>>No comment to the text, merely another suggested form of action as well!
>>>[I liked the 'idea' of Google Bombs, but didn't feel I could
>>>necessarily endorse it as an approach!].
>>>
>>>I have identified the total FTEs for the University of Brighton that
>>>will be entirely omitted under the Guardian's present methodology. I
>>>have also calculated the total FTEs that will not appear under the
>>>headings we would expect - thus distorting the University's subject
>>>mix (and rankings) as a whole.
>>>
>>>If all universities were able to undertake this analysis, the total
>>>FTEs affected by the Guardian's approach potentially could be
>>>significant - and would warrant a response from the Guardian to defend their actions.
>>>
>>>Best wishes,
>>>
>>>Judy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Academic, financial or space planning in UK universities
>>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Oldham
>>>Sent: 06 February 2007 11:28
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Joint response to Guardian
>>>
>>>Dear All,
>>>
>>>The following is the text of an email I intend to send to Donald
>>>MaCleod. To date I have the following signatories: Liverpool, St.
>>>Andrews, Bristol, Westminster, QMC, Glasgow, Portsmouth, Brighton,
>>>Hertfordshire, Liverpool Hope, SOAS, Dundee, Reading, Teeside, KCL.
>>>
>>>Please let me know if you wish to be taken off the list; or
>>>alternatively if you wish to be added. I intend to send it off at
>>>2.00pm tomorrow (Wed).
>>>
>>>If the Guardian fails to take this on board, I think we seriously
>>>need to consider asking for some form of health warning to be
>>>included prominently next to its tables.
>>>
>>>Best wishes,
>>>
>>>Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>The following universities strongly endorse the comments made by
>>>Judy Evans of the University of Brighton:
>>>
>>>"Not only is it perfectly possible to have JACS codes assigned to
>>>multiple academic cost centres, but there is no reason why HEIs
>>>should not avail themselves of the full range of JACS codes in
>>>existence when coding their provision for inclusion in the various
>>>HESA returns. Why you should decide to exclude some of these
>>>legitimate codes is unfathomable."
>>>
>>>Nor does the failure to correctly reflect academic activity only
>>>affect "small" subjects, as implied in your response to another
>>>member of the group. Preclinical medical and dental teaching, for
>>>example, is often carried out under a range of HESA cost centres,
>>>such as anatomy, pharmacology etc. Your method fails to take this into account.
>>>
>>>Does consultation mean consultation - or are you prepared to
>>>continue with a method that many find seriously flawed?
>>>
>>>-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-oo-o-o-o-o-
>>>Brian Oldham
>>>Management Data Analyst
>>>Finance Department
>>>King's College London
>>>Room 7.22
>>>James Clerk Maxwell Building
>>>57 Waterloo Road
>>>London SE1 8WA
>>>Tel: 020 7848 3850
>>>Fax: 020 7848 3356
>>
>>-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-oo-o-o-o-o-
>>Brian Oldham
>>Management Data Analyst
>>Finance Department
>>King's College London
>>Room 7.22
>>James Clerk Maxwell Building
>>57 Waterloo Road
>>London SE1 8WA
>>Tel: 020 7848 3850
>>Fax: 020 7848 3356
>
>
>
>
>
> David Marks
> Planning & Statistics Assistant
> University of Greenwich
>
> Tel: 020 8331 9350
> Fax: 020 8331 8855
>
>
> University of Greenwich, a charity and company limited by guarantee, registered in England (reg no. 986729). Registered Office: Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, Greenwich SE10 9LS.
>
|