The Cranky Professor

I pointed this out to LDW, and he was appalled. He also is wondering if there were an external examiner who might raise a stink. At the least, I hope it hits the bigger papers.

Hi - worrying indeed, and not a good sign of things to come. I just wanted to ask you if it's ok to include your post in the next Four Stone Hearth, this Wednesday the 11th. Alun at archaeoastronomy suggested your essay for the event, and I thought I'd check with you first. Best, Tim

.....Sure, I'm happy to be included. Drop me a copy of the url for the event at professor@crankyprofessor.com --MCT

This artical is not factual, in fact it wrong! The review by "managers" was in fact carried out by the dean of the school, Dr Brian Astin. Please get your facts straight, you are reporting un-true facts.

.....A dean can be considered a manager - but calling the dean a 'senior manager' is part of what distresses me. In older forms of academic organization that was not true - deans were typically faculty members serving for a term (sometimes a long term, but a term) as administrators who usually (though not always) returned to the classroom. Much like the medieval topos of humility in which men asserted their unworthiness to be bishop as part of the standard acceptance speech on election to a bishopric, deans asserted their desire to return to the classroom more frequently than they did so. --MCT

The dean in question still serves as a regular academic, giving lectures and associated duties along with his administrative role. I think the whole story has been mis-written, by all of the different media agencies. The whole story was very biased in favour of what 1 academic had to say. The whole "senior management" issue was related to the senior management members that made up the University's investigation team which looked at the complaint by Professor Buckland, and their decision to uphold the changes to the exam marks. However the dean seems to have been dragged into that "senior management" classification by the media in this instance.

I really think that we should try and get to the bottom of this whole story before we condemn a whole school\university on the say so of 1 academic, and to boot a professor! I feel it should be recognised that professors are not immune from critisism and scrutiny just because they have the title of professor.

.....Then it is the failure of the Academy to explain itself to everyone outside it - especially to the media - which is to blame for calling a dean 'senior management.' I believe that the intrusion of non-academic management techniques into the Academy is indeed our fault, our fault for failing to justify the difference between what we do and a profit-making business, that has brought us to this kind of problem. That's a big part of what makes me the Cranky professor.
.....I'm also familiar with the results of internal investigations - and take them with about the same seriousness as allegations by lone professors. --MCT

I would just like to say, that is the most intelligent answer i have seen or received concerning this particular matter. There are loads of web sites out there that are discussing\contributing to this debate, yours is the first that doesn't make me feel a failure to have worked hard for a good degree from Bournemouth University.

Thank you.

How is it the failure of the academy to explain themselves?

It was the Professor who instigated the "review by senior managers" (one of whom was also a dean) and when they found in favour of the remarking (also carried out by academic staff) he went running to the papers.

It was his email and interview which has led to the term "senior managers"; which to those outside is not the description of an academic. He may regard the marking changes as being made with fiscal ideas in mind, but having graduated from Bournemouth and sat the module in question I'm surprised he only failed 13 students.

His other comments in the interview are those you would expect from a disgruntled employee; that he was the sole voice of reason on a sinking ship, that he was the only one with scruples and was ever-ready to help any student. Well my year group complained about the module, as well as the year group before and the year group afterwards.

This whole affair is the result of an entire school of archaeology students been treated with disdain towards their profession. This is not because of profit tactics or grade inflation; if it was why not alter third year results that really matter. No, this is about a Professor not getting his way.