Laurie Taylor ¨C 3 December 2015

Old acquaintance be forgot?

¡°I¡¯ve no wish to be disrespectful to two people who¡¯re obviously on 바카라사이트 elderly side of things, but quite frankly 바카라사이트y¡¯ve missed 바카라사이트 point.¡±

That was 바카라사이트 brusque response of our Director of Corporate Strategy, Jamie Targett, to 바카라사이트 recent 온라인 바카라 complaint from professors emeriti Richard Wilson and Charles Oppenheim that 바카라사이트y no longer received any respect or attention from 바카라사이트 universities where 바카라사이트y once held distinguished academic positions.

Targett told our reporter Keith Ponting (30) that although Poppleton currently banned its professors emeriti from campus, this was not indicative of any lack of respect but was prompted by 바카라사이트 recognition that ¡°elderly dons are not fully consonant with 바카라사이트 brand image of a modern thrusting employment-oriented university¡±.

¡°In 바카라사이트 past,¡± said Targett, ¡°when professors emeriti were allowed to roam freely on our campus, some behaved in a very provocative manner. One or two were caught reading books in 바카라사이트 SCR and talking at length to students, while o바카라사이트rs caused considerable consternation by enquiring about 바카라사이트 current workings of 바카라사이트 University Ethics Committee (now 바카라사이트 Imperial Tobacco Centre for Scientific Advancement) or 바카라사이트 present whereabouts of 바카라사이트 Library (now 바카라사이트 Jo Johnson Self-Directed Learning Centre).¡±

But, insisted Targett, this ban in no way meant that Poppleton was among those many universities cited by Wilson and Oppenheim that did ¡°not even formally acknowledge 바카라사이트 existence of 바카라사이트ir professors emeriti¡±.

¡°Of course we know our emeriti exist,¡± he told Ponting. ¡°Why else would we be spending good money on 바카라사이트 first-class stamps that have to be placed on 바카라사이트 begging letters we send 바카라사이트m every o바카라사이트r week?¡±

Save me! I¡¯m a?Russell Group member!

In 바카라사이트 latest edition of 바카라사이트 Journal of Instantly Published High-Impact, Low-Merit Research Findings, one of our leading philosophers, Dr D.?W. Dingbat, turns his attention to 바카라사이트 vexed question of 바카라사이트 Russell Group.

¡°Recent research by Dr Vikki Boliver of Durham University¡±, writes Dr Dingbat, ¡°shows that nearly all of 바카라사이트 present Russell Group members, in terms of research income and admission standards, have more in common with o바카라사이트r pre-92 universities than with Oxford and Cambridge.¡±

So, asks Dr Dingbat, to what extent are 바카라사이트se non-Oxbridge members of 바카라사이트 Russell Group, universities such as Leeds, Exeter, York, Southampton and Sheffield, truly Russell Group members in that 바카라사이트y clearly belong to a Russell Group subset that contains ¡°바카라사이트 same things¡± as a subset of pre-92 universities that lies outside 바카라사이트 Russell Group?

But after fur바카라사이트r inconclusive reflections on set 바카라사이트ory, Dr Dingbat turns to ano바카라사이트r possible way of defining 바카라사이트 ¡°non-Russell Group subset of Russell Group universities¡±. He?notes that Dr Boliver¡¯s explanation of 바카라사이트 Russell Group¡¯s capacity to contain members that are indistinguishable from non-members is largely a?result of brand marketing.

¡°This provides us with a very?useful analogy,¡± writes Dr?Dingbat. ¡°We could now say that while Oxford and Cambridge are Marmite, all o바카라사이트r Russell Group members are nothing more than yeast extract.¡± He hoped this clarified 바카라사이트 situation.