Today's strike....

Sigur_2

fran_from_willesden wrote:

Oh come on. Wasters who couldn't make it in the real world, I don't think so. Without lecturers and the research they do this world would be a lot different. Are you a student?? Do you really think that everyone who has a degree would be where they are today without previous research and experience in relevant fields. Just because university holidays are months long, it doesn't mean that lecturers get the same amount of time off.

Would you rather someone not so intelligent researching a new medicine or disinfecting drinking water or treating wastewater?? I think not.

Good point.

I mean. Please think out your post before you type it out. You are talking dribble....

muddyfox470

I had absolutely no lectures cancelled on tuesday because of it! :P

Altho my french lecturer would have gone on it, but didnt because of the money, as like 30% of lecturers at durham are on temporary contracts, and missing a day affects your pay quite a bit or something!

Ian

fran_from_willesden

Sigur wrote:

Good point.

I mean. Please think out your post before you type it out. You are talking dribble....

And your post makes sense how exactly?? So you think that research isn't important?

Savvy_Sue

melancholly wrote:

there's a really big misconception amongst undergrads that the main aim of the university is to teach them - realistically, most income comes from research grants and from government research funding, based on the RAE, next one due in 2008.

You forgot the conference trade! Seriously, eldest comes home from Warwick on Friday and he's got nearly SIX WEEKS holiday! And why has he got that much holiday? Because the university can rake in loads of money renting out his room to conference delegates. (Actually more likely they're moving other students into his room, because being a good moneysaver he went for the cheapest option so his room isn't en-suite!)

More years ago than I care to remember, I used to work at another Uni (admin), and there was a great debate about moving from 3 terms to 2 semesters. The academics wanted a longer break at Christmas than at Easter, so that the students didn't have a long break mid-semester, and didn't have a long break before summer exams. But no, the university can make more money from conferences at Easter than it can at Christmas, so guess what happened?

MercilessKiller

Savvy_Sue wrote:

You forgot the conference trade! Seriously, eldest comes home from Warwick on Friday and he's got nearly SIX WEEKS holiday! And why has he got that much holiday? Because the university can rake in loads of money renting out his room to conference delegates. (Actually more likely they're moving other students into his room, because being a good moneysaver he went for the cheapest option so his room isn't en-suite!)

More years ago than I care to remember, I used to work at another Uni (admin), and there was a great debate about moving from 3 terms to 2 semesters. The academics wanted a longer break at Christmas than at Easter, so that the students didn't have a long break mid-semester, and didn't have a long break before summer exams. But no, the university can make more money from conferences at Easter than it can at Christmas, so guess what happened?

Just to upset you.. my course is only 2 semesters. In other words.. i'm finished at easter until October

However the rooms are still ours to stay in for semester 3 and not rented out etc... so no problems there..

melancholly

Savvy_Sue wrote:

You forgot the conference trade! Seriously, eldest comes home from Warwick on Friday and he's got nearly SIX WEEKS holiday! And why has he got that much holiday?

:)
oh i know!!! i had 2 month holidays at christmas and stupid amounts at easter as an undergrad - apparently they've now converted my dingy undergrad accommodation into on-suite... now critically this has not been done to improve things for students, it's to try and get more conference guests (they even say this themselves!).
i suppose universities are now more about business and profit than about learning and teaching..... *sigh*

Savvy_Sue

MercilessKiller wrote:

Just to upset you.. my course is only 2 semesters. In other words.. i'm finished at easter until October

However the rooms are still ours to stay in for semester 3 and not rented out etc... so no problems there..

:rotfl: For all I know, eldest is going back after Easter to twiddle his thumbs until the end of June when he's BACK HOME AGAIN! Not to worry, I've got plans for his Easter, I did check and he doesn't intend to use the 'I've got coursework to do' excuse on me (so obviously not thinking fast enough there then!)

Sigur_2

fran_from_willesden wrote:

And your post makes sense how exactly?? So you think that research isn't important?

Obviously research is important, but they get paid for that on top of what the government pays them.

If they want to enjoy few lecturing/tutorial hours, they shouldn't demanding higher wages. If they want higher wages, they'll have to cut their private sector research time, the number of non-essential conferences they go to and increase availability to students.

No lecturers are on the bread line, in fact there are thousands of researchers out there in both the public and private sector who wish they had a lecturing position. Lecturing to students is possibly the easiest job, all you have to do it relay your own biased information. You don't need to teach, nor do you need to wait for anyone to catch up like schoolteachers have to. Its simple relay the information and then post your office hours in which students who are having difficulties can visit. Good luck finding them in those hours though.

An increase in tuition fees, wasn't mean to go to the lecturers. It was for the universities.

If they are so talented, join the private sector research companies and do it fulltime. Oh wait, that mean 36hr weeks, fewer holidays, less prestige and probably lower wages. Ha.

[Deleted User]

Students don't know a damn thing about how universities work or anything else about the working world.

Research is for the university. It's one of their primary job functions. If a university department doesn't do any research, then it's research status lowers. Lower research status means less money. Less money mean less staff, less research, then eventually even less money. Then your course is cancelled because they can't afford to hire any lecturers.

You're right, lecturers aren't on the breadline but these are highly qualified people, who if they'd reached the same level in another profession would be earning a hell of a lot more, probably with a lot more job security.

So, look at it this way, if all your lecturers swan off to higher paying professions, universities will loose all their best staff and the quality of higher education in this country will drop off, leading to a eventuall decline in the entire nations economy.

I use to get the same holiday as lecturers (when i worked for Cardiff uni), I got 32 days a year. Now I work in 'the private sector' and get 25 days off. I put in roughly 10 hours a week more. I now get paid more and have much higher earning prospects. Guess why I left the university? They wouldn't give me a payrise.

Do I miss it? There's nothing quite like researching your own ideas and being at the cutting edge of science. Shame really.

Sigur_2

ringo_24601 wrote:

Students don't know a damn thing about how universities work or anything else about the working world.

Research is for the university. It's one of their primary job functions. If a university department doesn't do any research, then it's research status lowers. Lower research status means less money. Less money mean less staff, less research, then eventually even less money. Then your course is cancelled because they can't afford to hire any lecturers.

I take it you were a janitor. The entire economic arguement in your post is fundamentally flawed and stupidly inane.

Universities are nothing without students. Only the best lecturers should be rewarded, a broad 40% payrise is first ridiculously obscene and there is no justification for it. A pay rise, yes. a 40% payrise, no.

Giving an across the board payrise to all lecturers will only lead to inefficiency and a detrimental effect on universities in the long term. The best should be rewarded, and the mediocre shouldn't, that's why a union demanding a huge rise will only cripple university budgets and lead to staff cuts.

Departments which have unfashionable courses (such as engineering, physics, chemisty etc), would suddenly have to pay more from their budget to its staff, and this deficit wouldn't be filled with more students applying. Are you to say that these courses should then be cancelled, if you're such a firm believer in demand and supply? If the courses are cancelled, the lecturers are then without jobs. Its a vicious circle, and a circle controlled by the lecturers union because in the long term asking for insane pay increases only damages them.

If there is demand for the course, your course won't be cancelled. Undergraduate students are more interested in the teaching scores of universities, rather than the research scores which would interest businesses and post-graduates more.