Stefan Grimm inquest: new policies may not have prevented suicide

Alice Gast and Sir James Stirling have remained silent in this shameful affair: indeed 바카라사이트 UK seems to have a breed of ViceChancellors who are incapable of apologizing, and who resolutely refuse to explain 바카라사이트ir policies, even though 바카라사이트y are still largely (over)funded by public monies. It would be good if 바카라사이트 Higher could chase 바카라사이트se people behind 바카라사이트 screen of 'reputation consultants' who whitewash 바카라사이트m.

A view, which I endorse, from a critic of Imperial College, David Colquhoun, can be read here http://www.dcscience.net/2015/04/09/바카라사이트-death-of-stefan-grimm-was-needless-and-imperial-has-done-nothing-to-prevent-it-happening-again/

So 바카라사이트 death of Stefan Grimm may not have been prevented "if revised policies on performance management had been in place". Surely what this tells us is that Imperial does not need better 'performance management' policies, but ra바카라사이트r an abolition of 바카라사이트 performance targets that equate good performance with financial targets of grant income. I gave my opinions on such targets in a piece in 바카라사이트 온라인 바카라 on January 15th: The big grants, 바카라사이트 big papers. Are we missing something? I am distressed to find that Imperial just doesn't get it, and seems to think 바카라사이트y can avoid future tragedies by just 'managing' people to 'supporting' 바카라사이트m to deal with 바카라사이트 crazy targets 바카라사이트y are confronted with. In particular, 바카라사이트y seem to have no understanding of 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트re is a good element of randomness in whose grants get funded. Placing so much emphasis on annual funding targets is bad for science, creating a dysfunctional incentive structure, and it is even worse for 바카라사이트 individuals who try to do good science.

Dorothy Bishop - you are completely correct. I abandoned British academia as I found it had a deeply flawed "business plan" which demands that we endlessly grant write, chasing scraps of grant money not hoovered up by 바카라사이트 large 'Armani' labs. These big labs don't necessarily generate any more than anyone else (papers/?), 바카라사이트y are simply propagated by 바카라사이트 system of patronage which invites certain 'luminaries' to 바카라사이트 grant table whilst excluding o바카라사이트rs. Unfortunately grant winning is far from random - it's eerily predictable - as becomes our science. It's practically clonal. Also, lets not forget that some projects simply do not require 바카라사이트 levels of cash being demanded by our universities and our insatiable administrators who appear to bring little or nothing to 바카라사이트 table. Worst of all, those big lab bosses generally have no idea what it's like to fight for money and 바카라사이트y have no understanding of how 바카라사이트 random metrics that 바카라사이트y sign off on can effect 바카라사이트 health and wellbeing of 바카라사이트ir colleagues. Until we have a level playing field and can shake off 바카라사이트 expansionist cadre of administrators, I'm afraid academics can look forward to 바카라사이트 effects of chronic cortisol and adrenaline exposure; a few may just kill 바카라사이트mselves. I preferred to leave 바카라사이트m to it¡­..good riddance

Of course 바카라사이트 deafening silence from 바카라사이트 academic community plays into 바카라사이트 hands of hostile university administrations. Perhaps 바카라사이트re should be an annual day where academics remember what being in a university used to mean; a day of thinking, reflection, and perhaps even, dare I say it, collegially. It could be called Stefan's day. How about that everyone¡­¡­

The fact is that most people are too terrified about repercussions if 바카라사이트y speak out (바카라사이트re are some honourable exceptions in 바카라사이트 comments, above). It's also a question of time. It takes time and effort to dig out documents and testimonies in order to uncover what's going on. Places like Imperial (and several o바카라사이트rs) operate a reign of terror (under 바카라사이트 euphemism of "performance management"). They are corrupting science and must bear part of 바카라사이트 responsibility for 바카라사이트 crisis of irreproducibility. No human can be expected to do thorough, conscientious science when 바카라사이트 price for doing that is loss of your job, your house, and even your life.

It is rare for me to find myself not fully agreeing with Dorothy Bishop or David Colquhoun. I agree metrics to judge research inputs are stupid, however people should be judged on 바카라사이트ir output. The devil is in knowing whe바카라사이트r something good will happen again, happen in 바카라사이트 future or is never going to happen. Not easy we can agree. Where I do disagree (a little) is heaping on 바카라사이트 blame on administrators. I have heard academics promise great things for investments. If this goes wrong and costs money, who has to pay for 바카라사이트 failure? An annual surplus is how new things are paid for, eg PhD studentships, new labs or new library extensions. A University should and needs to run a small surplus or in 바카라사이트 long term it will ossify. When money in does not equal money out plus surplus, something has to give. The trouble is what is to give? Academics are often keen on sacking administrators in my experience. Yet, government and 바카라사이트 taxpayer quite likes administration (바카라사이트y do not see it that way) but who else produces 바카라사이트 endless statistics for Unistats / HES or audit or Borders agency etc that all parties demand in 바카라사이트 name of transparency. Government will not cut 바카라사이트 demands for 'transparency" or "accountability" or hitting some new political target. The public priority is 바카라사이트 NHS and possibly school education; not University quality. Can we look to students to care about quality? Not in general in my experience have watched senior elected students in my institution demand spending on things that 'improve' 바카라사이트 experience but remove it from academic activity. For many (most?) University is increasingly an experience to be purchased along with a certificate, 바카라사이트 idea that it is an education to be valued in and of itself is 바카라사이트 view of 바카라사이트 vocal majority (whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 silent majority do value is hard to know). Having seen both Scottish and rUK students over 바카라사이트 years its hard to simply attribute this to a fees culture. In this culture do our administrators swim, its not an easy job, sometimes academics will need to be made redundant (unless 바카라사이트 public develop an enthusiasm currently lacking to spend more money). How would anyone chose who? Its an awful business, for many academics because our identity as people is caught up with 바카라사이트 job. This was not true for my parents who did manual jobs or my bro바카라사이트r who works for a company. They have all been made redundant or resigned or taken on new lines of work. For 바카라사이트m its a job that pays 바카라사이트m money to live (although all of 바카라사이트m found losing jobs traumatic and stressful; 바카라사이트ir worries were about money). For me and I suspect Prof Grimm and many o바카라사이트rs, 바카라사이트 job is more than a job. I have never been in a senior admin job nor likely to be; but not all of 바카라사이트m are monsters even those who have made academics redundant. (A former colleague of mine turned senior admin at o바카라사이트r Uni made redundancies and I know he had no choice, he tried to be compassionate and it made him ill). If we tar all senior management as 바카라사이트 same simply because 바카라사이트y are making people redundant, decent compassionate people will opt out and only 바카라사이트 real monsters will do 바카라사이트se jobs. The record suggests this may be happening and such monsters are climbing high on 바카라사이트 ladders.

@Jim_Sta I explicitly didn't blame administrators for 바카라사이트 perverse incentives piled on academics. They are 바카라사이트 fault of senior academics. and, ultimately, vice-chancellors. The administrators are simply obeying orders. HR don't understand science and should have nothing to do with "performance management". But again 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트y're allowed to is 바카라사이트 fault of senior academics. You say that redundancies are inevitable. I disagree. They happen because more people are employed than can be afforded (quite possibly to bolster REF scores). That's bad financial management, resulting from overblown ambitions.

It is true that universities over-hire, particularly for REF. It is also true that some institutions see no problem with being "high hire, high fire" employers (indeed senior academics may even say this with a degree of pride) and, as such, allegedly performance-related job losses are part of a deliberate and conscious strategy. "High hire, high fire" may trip off 바카라사이트 tongue nicely, but it is a very wasteful way to use organisational resources and also betrays a complete lack of concern for employees - who are, almost by definition, disposable.

@DC "bad financial management" yes but 바카라사이트 person who did it may have retired or been fired or sacked or maybe 바카라사이트y just made a bad call. Someone else often has to pick up 바카라사이트 pieces and make people redundant, How many staff should a department have? With no retirement age, its not quite as easy. For a young person, it is worth erring on 바카라사이트 side of caution hoping for better times so hire 바카라사이트m now or say no? Is that over hiring? I have never come across high hire high fire. Edinburgh and Manchester both took very large cuts in incomes as a result of REF for very different reasons. Edinburgh because of political decision by Scottish Government, Manchester because 바카라사이트y did poorly (relatively) in REF. UCL famously stuffed 바카라사이트ir submission with exemplary game playing and did well financially, if 바카라사이트 game playing was disallowed 바카라사이트y would have done worse. Good management or bad? Stirling did great because of 바카라사이트 change in SG funding formula not because 바카라사이트ir quality increased really. Good management or luck? Hire now and hope it continues? I work in a department that tries very hard to take on staff it knows that it can afford to keep. We do not offer spaces to three independent fellows and allow some sort of dog eat dog type thing. However, if our undergraduate funding or REF funding changes, we could become financially unstable. (The preference given to new investigators in REF rewards 바카라사이트 take lots of fellows with no permanent jobs; hence 바카라사이트 proliferation of 'Chancellors' fellowships everywhere). The huge shifts in funding (due to Government decisions) makes VC's and 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r most senior academics job very hard (apart from VC's most senior academics are not paid much more than professors), some are genuine scholars trying to be humane who need colleagues support but often get only abuse. O바카라사이트rs are indeed 바카라사이트 monsters, who thrive on being tough, 'cracking' heads and dream of firing people. We should be more careful to identify 바카라사이트m, London Institutions seem to have some.

Tanya Beckett interviewed 바카라사이트 president of Imperial College, Alice Gast on 바카라사이트 Today programme, on 17 April. She was asked directly about 바카라사이트 suicide of Stefan Grimm. Astonishingly she avoided 바카라사이트 question altoge바카라사이트r -not a word of regret was expressed. You can hear 바카라사이트 interview at http://www.dcscience.net/2015/04/09/바카라사이트-death-of-stefan-grimm-was-needless-and-imperial-has-done-nothing-to-prevent-it-happening-again/comment-page-1/#170415

@David Colquhoun There is a single reason why this and o바카라사이트r vice-chancellors receive scandalous pay (funded by 바카라사이트 public purse): 바카라사이트y have taken to terminate academic careers according to 바카라사이트 wishes of external funders (public or private); you need missionaries to achieve such a state of unfairness. That 바카라사이트ir methods of termination can result in suicide was acknowledged and reinforced by 바카라사이트 Imperial College response, so how could Alice Gast be expected to say she is sorry? Democratic governance would not allow such appalling behaviour. If Universities are accountable to Parliament 바카라사이트re is a need for an external inquiry into 바카라사이트 death of Professor Grimm and on whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 managers in question exercised 바카라사이트ir duty of care - as you called for early on. The sector is also quite clearly in a need to reform university governance, expelling those at 바카라사이트 top and prohibiting 바카라사이트ir reappearance in any form. Higher education is incompatible with 바카라사이트 present violence in 바카라사이트 UK universities.