William Essex
Shall I tell you a story?
  • Dear Diary
  • About Us
  • Back Stories
  • Read My Shorts?
  • The Book of Fake Futures
  • Don't Click Here

Brave New Campus

23/6/2017

Comments

 
We were told the other day that the UK government has started awarding gold stars to universities, colleges and other places of "further" education. Gold, silver and bronze stars - sorry, ratings not stars. They're the end-product of a new evaluation process called the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), which is intended to improve standards by setting out its own criteria for "excellence" and then rating compliance with those criteria.
     You get a gold star - sorry, rating - for doing what the Teaching Excellence Framework tells you to do, not for challenging it, or coming up with a better idea. The debate "What is excellence in education?" has already been had, I guess, in some government office before the universities, etc., even get a look in. Pity our youngsters can't attend government offices for their further education, rather than universities.
     They might have to come to England, though, as the TEF is not UK-wide. "The TEF was developed by the Department for Education in England," says the website of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which is working with the Quality Assurance Agency (seriously, it is called that) on "TEF Year 2 Implementation", which is what's happening at the moment. In England.
     Places of further education in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can also apply for gold stars, although this TEF thing is only formally available (voluntarily; no university, etc., has to be assessed) in England. All very thought-through, right? The government gets to be seen to be busy by launching it; then, by opting in, the universities implicitly give it their seal of approval. Clever old government; gullible old universities, competing for gold stars.
     No, there's no extra money involved, except in the sense that if you get a gold star, that will come to the attention of students choosing a university (yes, it's that way round these days), and of course, recruiting more students means getting more money. No, there are no under-cover student-type assessors, in the way that hotel guests sometimes reveal themselves to be under-cover hotel inspectors judging whether a hostelry is worth, say, three stars or four.
     There is "a complete list of TEF assessors and panel members" on the Higher ... calls itself "Hefce", I think ... website, but when I clicked on the link I got an error message, and, you know, life is short. Anyway, my own "Website Excellence Framework" balks at an error message explaining that a link is probably broken because they've been redesigning their website and - my paraphrase - accidentally trod on it. Oh, and could I let them know? This is higher education, right? Bright people taking it upon themselves to spend our money assessing other people's excellence?
     Oh, wait - sorry - there are student assessors, and in exactly that hotel sense. The student guide to the TEF tells us that the assessment is substantially based on: "how many students do not continue with their studies after starting; how satisfied students are with key aspects of their teaching and learning; and graduates’ employment after they leave." I get the third one - education is aimed at employment, these days, nothing "further" than that - but the first and second? Excellence in education is a function of student satisfaction? Really? Just keep them happy?
     Also taken into account for a TEF assessment would be a voluntary submission by a "provider" (I think they mean a university) putting forward "additional evidence of teaching excellence" in a submission that "can be up to 15 pages", which is an odd limit. Very tiny typeface? But never mind. A "provider" will be assessed as excellent if it can provide evidence that it is excellent - just so long as its students agree. And get jobs - though it doesn't specify jobs that they could only get with their education - after they leave.
     No pressure, then. If you go to the Times Higher Education (THE) website and read through the analysis of the THE Teaching Survey 2017 (released in February 2017), you come up against this in the bit where they're talking about the TEF: "Only 4 per cent of academics and 6 per cent of administrators believe that the proposed framework will accurately assess teaching quality, with 75 per cent of the former and 71 per cent of the latter saying it will not. And only 12 per cent of academics and 18 per cent of administrators believe that it will improve teaching quality (64 and 53 per cent, respectively, feel it will not)."
     A university chancellor was quoted in a newspaper saying that the new system represented "the passing of the old guard". An interviewee on my radio spoke of "unintended consequences". I wondered whether it would be appropriate to write about the recent conversation I had with a fine-arts graduate, lately of a gold-star institution near here, about her aspirations, as she took my money and made me the flat white I had ordered.

Picture
And in the other direction, another sunrise

And we should try not to forget the news reports last week in which it was suggested that tower-block external cladding can be simultaneously compliant with fire regulations, and highly inflammable. The overnight news brings accounts of tower-block residents emergency-evacuated because their homes turn out to be fire traps. I wonder if there is anybody, anywhere, who is absolutely one hundred per cent surprised by this. Or does it, up to a certain percentage, tally with what we know of human nature?
Comments

Deep is the new Big, surely?

20/6/2017

Comments

 
Where I go to, the talk is all of big data, and getting closer to the customer by (for example) knowing what they're doing online. Where I come from, I'm chased by pop-up ads from websites I visited days ago. I buy the second book in a series, and my Kindle suggests that I might like the first. Oh, and when I drop anything off at the dry-cleaner, I get an email later, asking how I'd rate the experience.
     I don't mind. But if all this leveraging of "big" data about my activities and preferences really worked, I'd be living a much easier life. With "deep" data, which is perhaps unattainable by technology (spoiler for my conclusion?), the internet might know that I chose not to buy the thing I looked at on that website the other day; my Kindle might work out that I bought the second because I liked the first in paperback; my dry-cleaner - oh, don't get me started. I can join a "club" of people who drop off their dry cleaning there, and carry a card that identifies me as a member - no, don't get me started.
     I question whether it counts as innovation to learn a new trick with existing technology and apply it without question. We may be reaching the limits of what can be achieved via a superficial analysis of "big" behavioural data, and perhaps we're getting to the point where the customer is tolerating low-level stupidity rather than admiring how perceptive we are.
     To achieve "deep" big data, as distinct from shallow and perhaps counter-productively superficial big data, maybe the only answer is to include the human element? If you want to know what I really think of the "suggested posts" I'm offered on Facebook, for example, don't look at the three-option tick-box form I'm offered if I delete one - ask me.
     But - yeah, right. How do you ask me?
     Send for an innovator. We need something new here.
Comments

Name and praise?

19/6/2017

Comments

 
I can't rid myself of the thought that the solution to all this is not to substitute one politician for another, one political party for another. Yes, Jeremy Corbyn seems post-election to embody hope and change while Theresa May has come to embody - actually, read the body language and the facial micro-expressions. I don't want to read analysis of the former's (lack of) administrative skills, because that's what the civil service does. I can't see anybody at the top of one party who isn't either a cartoon character or somewhat too desiccated to lead; I can't see anybody at the top of the other party except its leading personality.
     None of which is important, except that we follow personalities just as we follow flags. But that's the only role of a political leader. Trusting them actually to run things is historically a mistake and even more so today. Kensington. Seems to me that what's missing is transparency in the sense of accountability. Yes, politics is going to push this tragedy down the road to a public inquiry at which we will learn lessons at the expense of having lost the raw edge of immediacy. What I feel I should know, today, is: what's being done, and who's doing it, to prevent this happening again.
     I don't want to hear that a politician is putting in place an urgent review. I want to see, via social media, that local people, firemen, perhaps even local media, are checking out the fire precautions in their local blocks and individual flats. I want to know the name of the individual, or the names of the team members, who are going into tower blocks in Kensington and checking the fire safety. Not to accuse them of anything, or even to hold them responsible, but to hear what they have to say.
     And act on it. And know that it's being acted upon now, by people on the spot, rather than years later when the public inquiry has heard from all the witnesses.
Comments

Government is the thing that doesn't work.

18/6/2017

Comments

 
There are people to help, in their multitudes. There are more supplies than can be distributed. Central government is reported to have drafted in civil servants to help the local council, which is reported to have "gone AWOL" (one radio report, this morning). What is not needed here is government. What is present here, in abundance, is spontaneity. People just turned up; supplies were delivered. There is a lack of co-ordination and thus, I suppose, control. But I would rely on spontaneity to provide that, not government.
     I wonder how big a change is coming.
Comments

Disaster

16/6/2017

Comments

 
We wake up to the knowledge that the country is riddled with tower blocks like that one. There were people at upper-floor windows. A baby was thrown from an upper-floor window - and caught. As so often seems to happen, we find our sense of community in tragedy. A disaster happens, or an atrocity: doors are thrown open; beds are offered for the night; volunteers and donations arrive. This time, Muslim volunteers - the reports specified Muslim, but they weren't alone - came from all over London to help. This time, places of religion and halls and safe spaces in West Kensington are already over-stocked with donated bedding, food, clothes, nappies, even furniture. The MP David Lammy showed his emotion as he spoke to Channel 4 News about the friend he lost, an artist, who died with her mother.
     Meanwhile, in the background, the necessary conversations have begun about how this could possibly have happened. Grenfell Tower was built in 1974, same year as the film The Towering Inferno was released. Safety features fell a long way short of today's standards, and we now know that renovations, alterations, et cetera, can compromise (ie, drill through or remove) such safety features as fireproof walls and panels. 9/11 hasn't faded from the collective memory, and we now learn that there have been more or less regular tower-block fires around the world since then. Floating like so much rubbish on the tide of emotion is the politics: May doesn't care because she didn't meet the people; Corbyn is exploiting the tragedy to highlight the division between rich and poor. Nonsense. Both those individuals are human, which is enough to refute all of that.
     What happened was, I suppose, people. However well-intentioned, or self-interested, or both, or otherwise driven, people got together to make this happen. Urban planners, high-rise architects, successive local authorities, private contractors, all working within rules and to financial constraints imposed by governments. And then other people were not empowered to stop them: the poor and vulnerable, voiceless people who were given homes in the block. What might happen now is that we collectively raise the money to re-house the residents of (initially) the upper floors of all those other blocks, and we manage to do that separately from the political process, which can't operate without soundbites, arguments and "balanced" debates between party members who oppose each other and get nowhere. Politics, democracy as practised today, gives us only division.
     Maybe the disaster-relief fund will pick up enough momentum to get the job done, and the politics will evaporate. Imagine that - the revolution finally arrives, and it turns out to be a house-building project.
     Or are we human? Are we going to spend our time arguing over who's at fault and who can be blamed, as if picking a scapegoat would give us closure? There are people who will sleep tonight on the upper floors of tower blocks. Or not sleep. I say: let's stop arguing and build houses.

It's just a tree that caught my eye.
Just a tree today, flowering. Ordinary miracle.
Comments

June 12th, 2017

12/6/2017

Comments

 
Actually, this was taken yesterday, but even the demands of fake news have to be respected sometimes. And there's a kind of truth to it, in that the sun didn't come out properly until this morning. It's a bright day in Falmouth, full of promise. My picture has the truth of fiction.

Picture
Somewhere up there, it's a sunny day.

And there's something deeply satisfying in the knowledge that I took the picture yesterday, on the 12th, wrote the paragraph above on the 13th, today, and then didn't put in a title so that the machine would automatically put in the date. Which it did - yesterday's date. Let's just say that the apparently factual statements in this blog post are "based on a true story" about taking a photograph.
Comments

Not fixing systems

8/6/2017

Comments

 
To write this into my own record, last Friday's (2/6/17) Financial Times quoted the "consultant, speaker and thought leader" Shashank Nigam on the British Airways IT meltdown. This, Nigam told the FT, is the "age of the enraged customer". Sounds right to me. Nigam is the author of Soar: How the Best Airline Brands Delight Customers and Inspire Employees (2016), which is, as you might just possibly guess, a book on airline branding. There's a generous sample on Amazon, and although my interest in airline branding is marginal at best, Nigam's opening pages brought me very close to buying. I remember Paco Underhill's Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping (1999), which I found similarly convincing although the two books are very different: Underhill is writing about people and their shopping behaviour; Nigam is writing about airlines and how they present themselves.
     We are "enraged customers", aren't we? We have so many outlets for our emotion, and rage plays better on social media than resigned irritation. I wonder whether we really feel the way we say we feel, and whether we've always felt that way. And/or - is there a lot more "provocation" these days than there used to be? Somewhere in the collective recent memory is that airline incident in which a doctor was dragged off a flight. Then, three weeks ago, we had the "ransomware crisis" and the revelation that critical systems across the UK's NHS were running on archaic, insecure software. No sooner had we had ample time to fix that issue, than an engineer flicked off a switch at a single point of failure in a critical system - to go by the company's apparently unembarrassed explanation - and that was enough to kill an entire airline. Cue Nigam.
     Floating around the internet is a short piece to camera by the film director Ken Loach (see I, Daniel Blake), pointing to food banks, benefit cuts, other welfare failures of the modern state, and moving on from all that directly to the assertion that we need a Labour government. Finishing this two days after that bizarre election, I think I'll sidestep the question of whether we need somebody else heading up the government. No comment, except to say that the two major parties will be playing very different versions of "spot the election winner" in the coming months. Today's state does fail the poor, the sick and the disadvantaged (and I'm sure there was a news story recently - a mental illness is being redefined so that fewer people qualify for financial support), but I don't buy the idea that the solution is to switch from one group of politicians in the top jobs, to another. Speaking generally, you understand; not thinking of any specific individuals.
     Applying a version of Occam's razor to current British politics, I find it a lot easier to believe that there is no money left to do anything, than to believe that any political vision, with or without costings, can be applied in a way that will immediately (or even slowly) bring a marked (or even perceptible) improvement in anything. That doesn't mean I would argue for any policy of "austerity" that was to be implemented by politicians (of all people); it's just that I don't believe the current macro-political, macro-economic system is any more capable of being fixed than a modern car is capable of being made to fly. And while I'm at it, I've never been "delighted" by an airline (or "inspired" by an employer, come to think of it, although that would be down to my career choices).
     The common factor here, common to the paragraphs about airlines and to the paragraphs about politics/welfare, is human nature. So many words have been spoken, written and posted about the importance of building "redundancy" (duplication) into critical systems. And yet, three weeks after ransomware (ransomwaregate?), whatever systems review they undertook (not?) at BA ... missed that switch. Welfare is a vast labyrinth of people, administrators of people, systems and administrators of systems, regulators, politicians, journalists, patients who need care, patients who could just as easily have visited their GP or local pharmacist, opinions, entrenched positions, did I mention politicians? It's too big. There are too many people.
     And if you blur out the welfare-specific details, that makes it sound just as unmanageable, just as beyond any hope of change, as any other large organisation. I've seen it written that globalisation doesn't work any more. Big organisations certainly seem to fail very easily, even if they're held in place by spin or dogma. I wonder: what about national government?

Picture
Meanwhile, growing wild on a wall near here, unofficial flowers
Comments
    Picture
    In a desk diary scavenged from a house of the dead, a man records his own experiences of the end times: what he has to do to survive; how he came to be marooned where he is; how he reacts to the discovery that he is not alone.

    Picture
    Over coffee, a young journalist gets The Message.

    RSS Feed

    What happens here

    This site is updated weekly, usually on a Friday although I might change that (again). I write it because (1) I like writing it and (2) I like having a deadline. More often than not, it works out as a commentary on the week just passed*.
      There are no ads, no pop-ups and no tricky business with cookies. I don't take money for my own opinions. [Except when they come out in book form.] I write this for myself, without a set agenda, on any subject that catches my attention. If you're interested enough, it's not hard to work out my interests. Not impossible, anyway.
    *Although I seem to have gone away from that recently. Normal service may or may not be resumed.


    No data is kept on this website overnight. Blog posts are usually shared to my Facebook page. We can discuss them there if you feel so inclined.

    Picture
    There's a page for this, but maybe you'd like to see the cover here?

    Where are we now? We're hurtling round the sun, held to the ground by a weak force that we don’t begin to understand, arguing about trade deals between the land masses on a planet mostly covered by water.
       The dolphins must think us ridiculous. No wonder they only come to the shallow water to play with us, not to signal their most complex philosophies. More.


    Riddle. It takes two to make me, but when I'm made, I'm only a memory. What am I? Scroll down to find out.

    Is that a catastrophe I see before me? Could be. There was a clear sky earlier, but now clouds are encroaching from the North. We could be in for a storm. More.


    There's a picture, it's just loading...
    You found me!
    Welcome. Thank you for coming. But am I the right
    William Essex? Click here
    to meet some more.



    Read My Shorts?

    Here is yet another page of old blog posts and other writings. Sorry, but I need my metaphorical sock drawer for metaphorical socks. The link to the page is right at the end of the paragraph here.

    A very green picture. I can't remember where I took this.


    Roads without end

    Here is a passage from a review of the book The Road to Somewhere by David Goodhart. I haven't read the book (yet), but the collected reviews would make a worthwhile set of political arguments in their own right. More.

    Picture
    Also available in English. Look further down.

    State of the Union

    Several commentators today saying that they've lost confidence in the US. Making their point by talking up the glories of the past. After two weeks of this administration, they're not going back.
         Were they wrong, and they've seen the light? Or has the US changed? I guess the latter is the intended meaning. But we should at least acknowledge the possibility... More.

    Categories
    (Started 4th November 2017; forgotten shortly after that.)

    All
    Abuse
    Consent
    Media


    Kitchen parenting

    I have teenage children. When they're home, sooner or later one of them will come to me and say: "Dad! We're going to make a mess in the kitchen!
       "Great!" I will reply, picking up on the tone of voice. "What are you going to do?"
        "We thought we'd slice up some peppers and onion and bits of chicken and leave them glued to the bottom of the frying pan. Burn something in one of the saucepans and leave it floating in the sink."
        "Anything else?" More.

    Picture
    Variously available online, in a range of formats.

    No pinpricks

    Okay, so a certain President recently made a speech to his people, in which he told them that their country's military "don't do pinpricks". His intention was to get across that when those soldiers do a "limited" or even "targeted" strike, it hurts. But those of us in the cynical wing of the listening public took it the other way. More.


    Picture
    Ceased to exist. Sorry.

    Making mistakes

    We all make mistakes in our relationships. Some are mistakes that can be corrected with an apology. Sometimes - "if only I'd said that, and not that." Sometimes, they're mistakes that are incomprehensible even to ourselves, and sometimes, we do things that show us up as not quite the likeable hero of our own story that we want to think we are. More.

    Man down?

    There's a report by the Samaritans about men and suicide. It's titled Men, Suicide and Society, and it finds that men are more likely to take their own lives than women (in the UK and ROI). More.


    Not available for women

    Offending the status quo

    Looking at both the US election and the revived Brexit debate in the UK, the question is not: who wins? but: how did we get here? More.

    Thinks: populism

    Bright, sunny morning. Breeze. Weather forecast said fog, but it's a blue sky overlaid with vapour trails. Windy season, drifts of Autumn-coloured leaves. Thinking, on this morning's walk, about populism. More.

    Picture
    Early morning, Church Street, Falmouth

    9th May 2014

    On the day that I wrote this, the early news told us of a parade in Moscow to celebrate Russia’s defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War. Crimea remained annexed, and the Russia/Ukraine crisis was not resolved. At around half eight, the BBC’s reporter in Moscow was cut off in mid-sentence summarising the military display; the Today programme on Radio 4 cut to the sports news. More.

    Riddle. What are you? You're a conversation!

    Archives

    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011

    Picture
    Out of print. Sorry.
No animals were harmed in the making of this website. Other websites are available online (and off). All the content here is copyright William Essex, this year, last year, the year before that and, you
guessed it, the year before that, although I don't have the time right now to hunt out that little symbol. This website uses organic ingredients and respects your privacy. Come back some time.