Staff at the mercy of satisfaction scores

June 12, 2014

As a University of Surrey graduate – and later a professor, member of council and senate, and chair of the academic assembly there – could I say how deeply moved I am to know that it is leading the way in modernising the assessment of its teaching? (“UCU mulls vote of no confidence in Surrey v-c over staff assessments”, News, 29 May.) Lecturers whom students rate below 3.8 out of 5 in questionnaires will in future, it seems, be subject to a “capability meeting”.

Accurate approaches to measuring satisfaction were not available when I was a student there. Some staff, I think, even questioned whether grading teaching would be scientific or valid. There were some pretty quirky views. Lewis Elton, for many years Surrey’s professor of higher education, used to quote Wilhelm von Humboldt: “the teacher is not at the university for the sake of the student; both are there in the service of scholarship”. Thank goodness universities can now rise above this.

Sir Christopher Snowden, Surrey’s vice-chancellor, aims to “secure its position as a top 10 university”. And as Paul Stephenson, the director of human resources, points out, “other leading universities” are doing just the same. So in no time we’ll have dozens of top 10 universities. Everyone will gain!

Apparently Surrey’s University and College Union branch is considering a vote of no confidence in the vice-chancellor. Last year, you reported that the union stopped Surrey from assessing staff on how many of their students received at least a 2:1 grade for their modules (“Surrey considered grade targets for staff appraisals”, 18 July 2013). For some reason, the UCU imagined that this might “distort marking patterns”. How are our leaders to drive up quality if they have to listen to criticism?

A few years ago, Elton suggested that “management and dirigisme” might be “endangering the future of universities”. An unfortunate few, I’m told, still harbour such doubts. The rest of us have learned to love dirigisme. And why not? Our leaders, after all, are always right.

John Holford
Robert Peers chair in adult education
University of Nottingham

Times Higher Education free 30-day trial

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

PhD Scholar in Medicine

University Of Queensland

Manager, Research Systems and Performance

Auckland University Of Technology

Lecturer in Aboriginal Allied Health

University Of South Australia

Lecturer, School of Nursing & Midwifery

Western Sydney University

College General Manager, SHE

La Trobe University
See all jobs

Most Commented

women leapfrog. Vintage

Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O’Gorman offer advice on climbing the career ladder

Woman pulling blind down over an eye
Liz Morrish reflects on why she chose to tackle the failings of the neoliberal academy from the outside
White cliffs of Dover

From Australia to Singapore, David Matthews and John Elmes weigh the pros and cons of likely destinations

Mitch Blunt illustration (23 March 2017)

Without more conservative perspectives in the academy, lawmakers will increasingly ignore and potentially defund social science, says Musa al-Gharbi

Michael Parkin illustration (9 March 2017)

Cramming study into the shortest possible time will impoverish the student experience and drive an even greater wedge between research-enabled permanent staff and the growing underclass of flexible teaching staff, says Tom Cutterham