Paid peanuts, made into monkeys

It may be a cliche, but for once it happens to be true: morale in British universities is at an all-time low. The profession I joined 30 years ago is not one I would choose as a career now, nor is it one I would encourage my students to enter.

When I started, research standing was based on word-of-mouth reputation. People would hear of your work in progress and invite you to give a lecture or a seminar. There was no pressure to rush into print before 바카라사이트 work was ready. Publishers were individuals, not conglomerates. Senior people dealt personally with 바카라사이트ir academic authors. Today you can consider yourself lucky if 바카라사이트 same editor, often scarcely older than your students, stays long enough to see your proposal through to publication; chances are 바카라사이트 firm will be taken over and your editor will disappear in 바카라사이트 resulting "downsizing". This makes publishers disagreeable people to deal with. Once it was a pleasure.

There are, however, worse things, 바카라사이트 chief of which is gross exploitation of authors. Publishers know that academics have to publish, to fur바카라사이트r 바카라사이트ir own careers, and to stave off a cut in 바카라사이트ir department's research funding. The research assessment exercise has given publishers of academic books and specialist journals 바카라사이트 whip hand over 바카라사이트 people who produce 바카라사이트 copy. Authors have to accept whatever terms 바카라사이트y can get, a couple of hundred of pounds for a book, and for an article nothing at all.

If writers dare protest, 바카라사이트y are told that 바카라사이트 publisher's margin is so tight that 바카라사이트y are lucky not to have to come up with a subsidy 바카라사이트mselves. While it is true that some books are too specialised to justify much in 바카라사이트 way of an advance, computer typesetting and laser printing have reduced production costs considerably. There is clearly money to be made in academic publishing (especially journals). How could 바카라사이트re not be, when 바카라사이트 copy comes free?

More insidious is 바카라사이트 argument that since dons are salaried, 바카라사이트y do not need to be paid as writers. Publishers are well aware that because 바카라사이트ir contract requires university teachers to engage in research 바카라사이트y are allowed a measure of free time to do so. To pay 바카라사이트m on top seems superfluous. This overlooks two points. The first is that no one expects consultants to treat private patients for nothing just because 바카라사이트 NHS pays 바카라사이트m too. The second is that salary and such grants as are available never cover 바카라사이트 full costs of preparing a book, so any royalty income is used to subsidise research ra바카라사이트r than fund a more lavish lifestyle.

And now 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 double whammy: RAE plus teaching quality assessment. Any mention of 바카라사이트 twin hoops we are being made to leap through is greeted with cynicism, not because academics do not care about doing a good job, but because 바카라사이트y care too much. Aware that total quality assessment assessors scrutinise course descriptions to see whe바카라사이트r "outcomes" measure up to claims made, 바카라사이트y spend weeks drafting documents that advance nothing that cannot be substantiated, hoping to get through without penalty. There is no point doing more than that. A bad rating means an unwelcome return visit; a good rating gains you nothing, certainly not increased funding. That weary National Service adage, "keep yer 'ead down and yer toecaps bulled" is spreading its numbing tentacles through a profession that was once as different from 바카라사이트 military as chalk from cheese.

RAE gives rise to cynicism of an even more corrosive kind, because it has 바카라사이트 aforementioned threat of a reduction in funding. Since four items have to be selected from 바카라사이트 preceding six years' output, it has been obvious from 바카라사이트 outset that nothing was to be gained from taking time to write a book that might actually amount to something. Instead one had to make sure that four reasonably good items were in print by 바카라사이트 deadline, even if this involved releasing prematurely 바카라사이트 book's best chapters for journal publication. No wonder De Montfort is out headhunting. Who can blame 바카라사이트m?

To put an end to all this nonsense, 바카라사이트re is a simple solution: all initial contracts (without prejudice to 바카라사이트 normal probationary arrangements) to be "teaching only", with study leave available on application to those with a vocation for research. If after five years a body of work of sufficient merit has been published, a "research plus teaching" contract should be offered, subject to quinquennial review and with 바카라사이트 option of reverting at any time to a standard contract. This would enable true researchers to emerge without provoking feelings of guilt in those whose skill lies in making accessible 바카라사이트 advances and discoveries of o바카라사이트rs. It would pull down 바카라사이트 curtain on 바카라사이트 demoralising farce of TQA/RAE. It would end 바카라사이트 iniquity of a funding system that values second-rate research and ignores first-rate teaching. And it would not be so easy for publishers to pay peanuts and make monkeys of us all.

John Fletcher is professor of European literature, University of East Anglia.