[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
INKYFLASH: Polymer Transfer Dilemma
____ _ __ __ ____ __ ______ __ ___ _____ __ __
/ _// | / // //_/\ \/ // ____// / / | / ___/ / / / /
/ / / |/ // ,< \ // /_ / / / /| | \__ \ / /_/ /
_/ / / /| // /| | / // __/ / /___ / ___ | ___/ // __ /
/___//_/ |_//_/ |_| /_//_/ /_____//_/ |_|/____//_/ /_/
INKYTEXT 310a Thursday 2nd September 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Correspondence to InkyText@lancaster.ac.uk
Subscription requests to InkyText-Distribution-Request@lists.lancs.ac.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLYMER CHEMISTRY TRANSFER DILEMMA
SHOCK BID BY SHEFFIELD
SHEFFIELD UNIVERSITY is keen to recruit about 7 members of the
successful polymer group from Lancaster's Chemistry department. At
least six of these are understood to be willing to go, feeling that
their department has been underfunded and under threat for some time.
If the transfer is to be ratified and implemented in time for the next
RAE it will need to be approved this month (before Senate meets).
Agreement with Sheffield would be needed by the middle of this month
and HEFCE approval before the start of term. (The deadline for staff
RAE eligibility is not officially known but rumoured in some quarters
to be next March.)
HEFCE is understood to favour the deal and to be willing to make some
restructuring money available to facilititate it. Sheffield is
understood to hope to get about 85 percent of the associated MASN
(student numbers and funding), but there has been some suggestion that
Lancaster might also be allowed to retain 85 percent of current
Chemistry numbers and funding.
Chemistry teaching is required in Biology and Environmental Sciences,
as well as Combined Science and the North American Exchange programmes,
and there has been much lobbying of senior officers in the past few
days. All parties are keen to stress that assuring the continuing
quality of student education is a priority.
Lack of investment and failure to replace staff are cited as
additional reasons explaining the willingness to move, albeit
reluctantly, of staff concerned. They feel that to restore Chemistry to
a healthy state would require more than the mere replacement at a
junior level of staff planning to depart. Staffing problems become
acute next year when Dr Peacock, a mainstay of key undergraduate
teaching, finally goes.
Staff also point to the new laboratory rebuilt last year (after being
briefly converted to humanities and social science graduate study
room). This has inadequate fume cupboards and no storage space or
equipment.... Such grudging funding seems to them indicative of
official unwillingness to sustain Chemistry at, in their eyes, an
adequate level.
It is unlikely that the university will now stand in the way of staff
anxious to be transferred. Financial priorities rather than purely
academic ones will loom large in deciding how to cope with the
implications. Nonetheless at a meeting of interested parties held
yesterday morning the VC recognized the ongoing importance of chemistry
in any university.
ENDS