Like I said, I don't fault the decision to close the departments, just the way in which several parts of it was done.
I suppose the main difference of opinion comes from having been on Guild Council when this happened and thus discussed the issue a lot then, and having discussed the situation with the sabbaticals who were in many of the high level meetings on the issue, I do actually believe the university with what it says on the finances of the departments that closed.
There have been huge numbers of different stories going around about what the the financial situation is/was. I don't know what the situation is, as I haven't seen all the figures (and probably would have trouble working them out if I did).
What I believe is what I've been told by the Sabbs, who I know and trust, and who were in a lot of the meeting that went on at that time. And that is:
- That until recently, the University really didn't really know what it's finances were like, due to previous mismanagement, and was discovering the huge losses.
- That the auditors for the University told the university it had to substantially increase the amount in its reserves, or they wouldn't audit it as viable (or whatever they have to do). Which meant it had to make decisions fairly sharpish.
- That the new financial model is fairly accurate. I'm not at all saying its perfect, but on balance, I believe it more than the other claims I've heard about the state of the finances.
- That the University had to take into account the upcoming changes to the financing of University on the research side, which would heavily reduce/remove entirely research money from lower scoring departments.
Also, I think the Chemistry Department was losing money before the new financial model arrived. I'm less sure on that last one though.
Right then, that's my beliefs on the facts of the situation, now onto my opinions on it:
Yes, the University shouldn't be turned into a business, however (and I know this is likely to get people really disagreeing with me), I have no problem with a University choosing to reduce its departments, if the reasons are good enough.
There are a fair few Universities in the UK. If Exeter doesn't have a given department, you can go to another University that does. And given that one of the reasons that the department was closed is that it wasn't doing well, you'll likely get a better degree. You come to University to study a single subject (or 2-3 more with joint honours and suchlike), so you want somewhere that's good at that subject.
I don't believe that departments that are doing well should have to long term prop up/subsidise departments that aren't, rather than putting that money into making said succesful departments more successful.
Without the three departments that they're in the process of closing, Exeter still has rather more departments than the national average. Thus, I think it still provides a breadth of education. Beyond that, I don't see that they should have to keep departments open.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2006-Jun-19, Monday 11:27 (UTC)I suppose the main difference of opinion comes from having been on Guild Council when this happened and thus discussed the issue a lot then, and having discussed the situation with the sabbaticals who were in many of the high level meetings on the issue, I do actually believe the university with what it says on the finances of the departments that closed.
There have been huge numbers of different stories going around about what the the financial situation is/was. I don't know what the situation is, as I haven't seen all the figures (and probably would have trouble working them out if I did).
What I believe is what I've been told by the Sabbs, who I know and trust, and who were in a lot of the meeting that went on at that time. And that is:
- That until recently, the University really didn't really know what it's finances were like, due to previous mismanagement, and was discovering the huge losses.
- That the auditors for the University told the university it had to substantially increase the amount in its reserves, or they wouldn't audit it as viable (or whatever they have to do). Which meant it had to make decisions fairly sharpish.
- That the new financial model is fairly accurate. I'm not at all saying its perfect, but on balance, I believe it more than the other claims I've heard about the state of the finances.
- That the University had to take into account the upcoming changes to the financing of University on the research side, which would heavily reduce/remove entirely research money from lower scoring departments.
Also, I think the Chemistry Department was losing money before the new financial model arrived. I'm less sure on that last one though.
Right then, that's my beliefs on the facts of the situation, now onto my opinions on it:
Yes, the University shouldn't be turned into a business, however (and I know this is likely to get people really disagreeing with me), I have no problem with a University choosing to reduce its departments, if the reasons are good enough.
There are a fair few Universities in the UK. If Exeter doesn't have a given department, you can go to another University that does. And given that one of the reasons that the department was closed is that it wasn't doing well, you'll likely get a better degree. You come to University to study a single subject (or 2-3 more with joint honours and suchlike), so you want somewhere that's good at that subject.
I don't believe that departments that are doing well should have to long term prop up/subsidise departments that aren't, rather than putting that money into making said succesful departments more successful.
Without the three departments that they're in the process of closing, Exeter still has rather more departments than the national average. Thus, I think it still provides a breadth of education. Beyond that, I don't see that they should have to keep departments open.