YORK VISION
Tuesday June 23rd, 2009
YORK'S FINEST CLAMMER FOR THE ONLY POSITION WORTH HAVING
THE GOOD OLD DAYS
As he prepares for the joys of retirement, York's legendary Economics
Lecturer tells Vision why he does not envy today's students...
JOHN
SUCKLING
I
came to the University in
1970 to a collegiate setup
where different disciplines
mixed in the same college,
where senior common rooms
provided meals, a booze cup-
board and stimulation, where
a tutorial had six to eight
students and where the first
vice-chancellor (Lord James),
when asked what behaviour he
expected in the mixed gender
colleges, replied "behaviour
appropriate to a gentlemen’s
London club."
Colleges were not locked,
the porters knew who the scal-
lywags were, contracts con-
tained clauses like "holiday
entitlements are not less than
six weeks per year." Boards
of studies were crowded and
often tumultuous affairs with
appeals to principle and the
rules of debate.
Basic English food was
available in the six dining halls
– you could choose which, and
each year I would give an end
of year party based on home
brewed beer probably break-
ing every public health rule.
People had sore heads the fol-
lowing day and some puked
(the beer was quite strong).
Numbers in Heslington
Hall were small, you knew the
Registrar and his minions,
the administrative touch was
light and departments were
left to get on with it. The teach-
ing load was heavier than now,
students had more time to
ponder about what they were
being taught, and the propor-
tion of first and upper second
degrees hovered around 15%.
And they had to write more
essays.
The contrast with today is
marked. I wouldn’t dare offer
homebrew at a student party.
There has been a massive in-
crease in the bureaucracy and
associated centralisation. Lots
of management centres with
frequent new initiatives, lay-
ers of managers, sub-manag-
ers, deputy-sub-managers...
The people who actually keep
the place running, cleaners,
porters and maintenance staff
face pressure to do more with
less time. All accompanied
with large amounts of bumf,
form filling, box ticking, per-
formance indices etc.
We teach less and in larg-
er groups. The emphasis has
shifted from written argument
to exercises. Why? It’s easier to
justify the marks for a problem
or multi-part question. The old
chalk-and-talk session is re-
placed by Powerpoint, course
notes proliferate, reading lists
get shorter. Fewer books are
bought (look in the bookshop
on campus, the range of basic
texts is narrowing).
I have much sympathy
for today’s student, they have
moved from an assessment
dominated school system to
module based degree struc-
tures being constantly exam-
ined. Teaching and/or student
ability has improved because
the increase in A-level grades
has been accompanied by a
rise in the proportion of I/
II(i) degrees awarded, now at
around 75%. There is no re-
ward for good teaching, only
for research overseen by the
RAE (research assessment ex-
ercise). In summary semi-be-
spoke education has been re-
How John may have looked in much simpler times
placed by off-the-peg teaching
(Marks and Sparks of course).
A university career is a
dream job. You get to teach
and research the things you
want, much of your time is
your own, promotion crite-
ria are transparent and the
money ain’t bad. Work condi-
tions are pretty good, support
services are there. You get to
see the world via the confer-
ence trade at someone else’s
expense. And York and its en-
virons have a lot going for it.
All-in-all I’ve been very lucky
to work here.
I end with the only advice
I ever give: "opportunities will
come your way, when they do
grab them, you think they
might come again, but they
don’t."
9
ALEX
RICHMAN
THE YORK
APRRENTICE:
FIRE THEM ALL
T
hey’re a bloody shambles. Would
struggle to start a fight in Gallery
on a Saturday. Couldn’t sell toilet
paper to a bloke with diarrhoea. I’m
talking, of course, about the organisers
of The Apprentice York, and if I was sat
opposite them I’d be jabbing my finger
in an accusatory manner right at their
stupid faces, just like Sir Alan Sugar
does.
Admittedly they made a lot of money
for charity, and for that they should be
commended, but then Bono does his
bit for Africa and that doesn’t stop him
from being a total tool.
It’s an excuse for several squads of
twats to swarm campus, selling tat like
doughnuts for five pounds apiece to
their mates to try and limp into the
next round, where they’re greeted by
another wretched set of demands more
akin to a Big Brother task than a busi-
ness exercise. Finally, the teams are
whittled down to three and each must
put on an event on campus, with the
winners being the team with the most
guests. Now this is more like a proper
task – it’s quite similar to ones on the
real Apprentice – but it’s still a complete
mess.
Team Calibre (and I’m sorry to
report that this ghastly name is one of
the better ones) won two challenges on
their route to the final, yet finished in
third place overall. They were also, coin-
cidentally, the poor sods that had to put
their event on in Alcuin’s B. Henry’s,
which has been at death’s door for about
as long as Fidel Castro.
Team Vivacity came second, despite
being the only group to actually come
up with an event idea better than "we’ve
been asked to put on an event so come
to a campus bar please": their 'Mr York'
competition had judges and contestants
plucked from the top tier of campus
celebrity (well, they had that bloke that
got punched by a girl) but still couldn’t
land the top prize.
Our winners were – steel yourself
for the name, because you’ll want to find
them and punch their throats – Team
mBezel, for their 'Woodstock Warm-
up' (which seems about as worthwhile
as holding an after-party following a
vasectomy). I know what you’re think-
ing: that name should have seen them
disqualified. Well it didn’t, because the
organisers are, as I mentioned, a bloody
shambles.
Who are they to judge, anyway?
Their website boasts a blurry picture of
Alan Sugar and the wholly genuine and
legally watertight disclaimer that “The
Apprentice York 2009 is not connected
or related with the BBC TV Series. Any
resemblance... is purely coincidental
and deeply regretted.” The organisers
were “overwhelmed” by the number of
applications this year apparently; all 30
of them. It would take literally minutes
to sift through all that paperwork. They
were probably thoroughly exhausted by
the night of the finals, and so it’s little
wonder that they just gave the £1,000
prize to whoever had the highest head-
count. Who worked wonders with their
resources? Who performed best over the
course of the competition? That’s just
too much work, man!
Still, fair play to the winning team
(I’m not typing it again) for playing the
system. As for the York Entrepreneurs,
well I’m afraid you’re all f…rustratingly
bad at organising competitions. Better
luck next year, eh?