9
YORK VISION
Tuesday June 23rd, 2009
ALEX RICHMAN THE YORK APRRENTICE: FIRE THEM ALL
T
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 cupboard 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 scallywags were, contracts contained 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 breaking every public health rule. People had sore heads the following 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 teaching load was heavier than now, students had more time to ponder about what they were being taught, and the proportion 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 increase in the bureaucracy and associated centralisation. Lots of management centres with frequent new initiatives, layers of managers, sub-managers, 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, performance indices etc. We teach less and in larger 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 replaced 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 structures being constantly examined. 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 reward for good teaching, only for research overseen by the RAE (research assessment exercise). In summary semi-bespoke education has been re-
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 criteria are transparent and the money ain’t bad. Work conditions are pretty good, support services are there. You get to see the world via the conference trade at someone else’s expense. And York and its environs 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."
How John may have looked in much simpler times
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 business 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, coincidentally, 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 Warmup' (which seems about as worthwhile as holding an after-party following a vasectomy). I know what you’re thinking: 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 headcount. 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?