Can good academic standards co-exist with high levels of recruitment in UK HE institutions?
What is the role of an External Examiner in the maintainance and improvement of quality standards?
Is it proper to censor an Examiner's report or otherwise apply pressure on the Examiner to change his/her report?
Should External Examiners be chosen on the basis of their qualifications and experience or on the basis of whether or not they will write favourable reports, regardless of what they observe during the QAA process?
Let's see what Kingston University Principal Lecturer and MA Music Course Director, Mike Searby has to say about this:-
Here is the report to which Mr Searby refers
Following the issuing of this report, a call was put forth by School of Music management for staff members to recommend candidates to fill a slot to be vacated by the very External Examiner who wrote the aforementioned report. The following is an example of the selection criteria espoused by then Acting Head of School, Dr Carol Gartrell:-
What exactly does Dr Gartrell mean by "sympathetic" and "constructive" in this context?
The following is an e-mail from Ms Gloria Toplis, BMus Course Director sent several months after Mr Searby's call for staff to "ask her [the External Examiner] to amend" her report:-
What's going on here?
The Daily Telegraph published an article on 1 July 2008 about the scandalous practices in the UK Higher Education sector surrounding the awarding of top degrees, in which it mentions Mr Searby's actions in connection with Kingston's External Examiner.
On 2 July 2008, the Surrey Comet reported that Kingston University denied the authenticity of the above e-mails and called them 'bogus':-
Yet what is quite interesting about the University's denial is that in an earlier BBC report, the University CONFIRMED the authenticity of the e-mails:-
(source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7470125.stm)
On July 7, 2008, The Surrey Comet acknowledged that it got the story partly wrong. Kingston University did NOT refer to the e-mails as 'bogus,' however to date, they continue to categorically deny their authenticity. Is there really a difference?
What to YOU think?
Good Working Relationships?
Dr Howard Fredrics was dissmissed from his position as Senior Lecturer because of an alleged "breakdown in working relationships" which he supposedly caused, and because of "misconduct" in the form of a good faith critical report to his line manager regarding the performance of a colleague in his job duties.
If Kingston University is serious about its approach to dealing with staff who "cause" breakdowns in working relationships, why have they failed to take disciplinary action against other staff whose actions might be described as "critical" or "disrespectful" of colleagues?
Consider the following words by Mike Searby:
"..There were more qualified candidates for those jobs...but ____ _____ and ____ _____ were hired for their f*&^-a-bility."
Regarding one of these staff members, Mr Searby added that "if she was the last woman on earth, I would become gay."
Moreover, during two informal gatherings at the Albert Arms Pub, Mr Searby made comments concerning an alleged improper relationship between two staff members in the School of Music. He said that if one were ever faced with having to go up against one of these staff members, who happened to be a senior manager, then one could readily blackmail that staff member with threats of revealing the alleged affair.
In yet another incident, when referring to information contained in her application, Mr Searby made disparaging remarks about the discrepancy between the apparent age of a female job applicant's face and her hands.
Alas, such is the nature of daily discourse in the now former School of Music.
Research Quality Assurance?
Following the departure of key research-active staff members, Robert Taub, Stephen Arnold, Ingrid Pearson, Kevin Jones and Howard Fredrics, the School of Music's research profile took a major nosedive in the RAE ratings.
The following is from the 2008 RAE reports for Kingston University. Note that most of the 5.5 full-time staff entries are rated at or near the bottom of the scale. Is this what should happen when working relationships are 'restored' (i.e. by removing or driving away 'difficult' or 'expensive' staff members? ) :-
