Update from the Vice-Chancellor (updated 9 May)

May 9th, 2016

A message from Professor Sir David Greenaway, Vice-Chancellor of The University of Nottingham.

Dear colleagues,

My annual round of All Staff Forums, which has always offered an opportunity for us to discuss change, is scheduled later than in the last few years. That being so, I thought I should write on our changing environment, issues we will no doubt pick up on again in upcoming Forums.

Significant changes are taking place in our University this year. These are in response to changes in the higher education environment more generally, and necessary to help sustain our University as a successful, broadly-based and modern institution; offering excellence in teaching and research.

Key changes in the wider environment include: changing student expectations (embracing how students learn as well as what they learn); ever more pressing competition (domestically and internationally) to recruit high quality students and staff; and increasingly fierce competition to secure funding to sustain our research activity at levels appropriate for a University of our standing.

I believe that accelerating changes in technology, increased internationalisation, and further regulatory intervention will only intensify these pressures.

As we embark on planning and budgeting for the next financial year and beyond, I thought it would be helpful to set out the context in which current planning decisions are being made. I would also like to update you on progress in key areas, major projects and new investment.

Responding to change

When developing Strategy 2020 we emphasized that, overall the University is in a strong position globally. Over the last two decades we have increased our student population, invested in priority areas of research, enhanced our estate and facilities in Nottingham, and established two international campuses in the continent which will be the world’s centre of gravity over the next century.

Strategy 2020 embodies real ambition. But we were very clear: to take our University to the next level will require investment in our future. In a world of shrinking public funding more resources will need to be generated from sustainable growth, income diversification, and of course ensuring we are doing what we do efficiently.

For these reasons we have reviewed how we are delivering on our Strategy 2020 objectives. Faculty-level evaluations led by Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellors (PVCs) have been key to this process.

At a broad level, the outcomes of this review include plans to increase our international student numbers, whilst largely maintaining our UK student population. To remain competitive it is obviously vital we keep under review the courses we offer, to ensure they are fit for the future and meeting the needs of students. This is why, following carefully researched cases from the relevant Faculties, we are investing in new staff and facilities and offering new degrees in emerging areas such as aerospace engineering and food process engineering; and introducing an Arts Foundation course. At the same time certain areas are shrinking in response to the decline in numbers of A-level candidates – for example those wishing to study languages.

There have always been ebbs and flows in subject provision. However, tides change more rapidly now and we have to respond to changing patterns of student behaviour. This is one of the factors that led us to undertake a Portfolio Review in the Faculty of Arts, which began in February 2015 and is now at consultation stage. We have seen a trend of falling numbers nationally and this feeds through to applications. To maintain quality, and ensure sustainability, we have to make changes.

While some universities have closed entire language departments this is not a route we have chosen. A key outcome of the Arts Portfolio Review is to safeguard all existing disciplines in the Faculty. No Departments are closing.

I should also note that I asked our new PVC for Research and Knowledge Exchange, Dame Jessica Corner, to evaluate our Research Strategy with our Faculty PVCs to identify priorities for future investment. That work is now well underway.

Continuing to invest in core activity

The core principles stretching back to the foundation of our University – set out again last year in Strategy 2020 – include putting students at the heart of the institution, valuing our staff and supporting them to excel, focusing on quality and taking an international outlook across all activities.

Staying true to those principles means ongoing investment in the learning environment. And that means building a University which is flexible enough to adapt to a changing world; a University which is financially sustainable in an ever more challenging funding landscape.

So, we have continued to make significant investments in core academic activity, including promoting current staff and appointing new staff. Recent examples include: appointments in Social Sciences as part of the Q-Step Programme; new Chairs in Sustainable Chemistry; new promotions across all Faculties, and other appointments supporting new course developments and research initiatives.

We have also continued to invest in our infrastructure, for which there is comparatively little public funding. We have therefore to generate a surplus each year to help fund this. In truth though we cannot support investment on any scale unless we find others – partners, lenders, donors or sponsors – to share the cost of investment. And we have had success in doing that. For example, the £23 million Carbon Neutral Laboratories building on Jubilee Campus is almost entirely externally funded. For those who would like further detail, a breakdown of University finances can be found on our website.

A sustainable, successful future

We are also investing for the future through Project Transform. This will provide new technology, new infrastructure and a new staffing structure. Successful delivery will support the student experience at Nottingham. It will also mean we have much more joined up systems, much less manual intervention in processes, and more opportunities for career progression (dissatisfaction with all of which I have heard about in Staff Forums over the last few years).

I am aware there have been challenges in planning and implementation, as there always are with change programmes of this kind (and in all organisations). I am grateful for the effort and energy which so many colleagues have put into ensuring we deliver change to benefit all of us for many years to come. (You can read a more detailed update on Transform from Professor Karen Cox, our Deputy Vice-Chancellor).

Finally, there is much to be positive about. Undergraduate applications are up on last year, and up relative to our competitors and the sector as a whole. Moreover, we have more applicants with A*AA predicted grades than ever before, and we are all now working hard to convert these to ensure Nottingham is their first choice. Postgraduate applications are also up.

We also continue to be successful in attracting external funding for research. One recent example is the Energy Research Accelerator, which will bring £60m investment from Government to support world-leading work at Nottingham and our Midlands Innovation partners.

And our ambitious Impact Campaign, which set a target of £150 million, is now past £170 million; delivering new Chairs, new scholarships, new infrastructure. My statements to the University Council (which can be accessed online) give regular updates on these and other developments.

I look forward to working with all of you as we create a sustainable, successful future.

Responses to comments posted below (updated 9 May)

First of all, thank you all for reading my update and for taking the time to leave comments. Because of the range of issues mentioned, I thought it would be helpful to address some of the key points individually.

  • ‘Building projects are being prioritised over staff.’

– Staff are our greatest resource, and quite properly we spend way more on people than anything else (£316mill, or 55% of total expenditure in 2014/15). But the truth is we have to invest in staff and facilities. Both are crucial. Our students deserve the best education in the best surroundings, and with the best facilities; likewise our staff deserve the best environment in which to work, whether that be office accommodation or laboratories.

It is worth noting that the funding streams for staffing and for capital investment are entirely separate: it is simply not the case that changes in staffing levels in one School or Faculty will release funding for new infrastructure. Finally, some infrastructure investment only takes place when we can secure external funding to support it.

  • ‘Why should the language departments be cut to pay for Project Transform?

– Project Transform is an entirely separate process that was started in February 2014. This is a University-wide programme to update and improve student administration systems, processes and organisational structures. In any big organisation, it is not unusual to see a number of major projects running at the same time. Project Transform and the Portfolio Review in the Faculty of Arts are separate and distinct projects – it is not the case to say that the former is being funded by the latter.

  • Why should the language departments be cut to pay for aerospace engineering or food process technology?’

– Each Faculty of the University has a large degree of autonomy over its own budget, and a responsibility to balance the books. It is not the case that changes in one Faculty are channelled into new courses in another. Proposals for new programmes come up through individual Faculties, and not in competition with other Faculties.

More broadly, our University does not exist in a vacuum. It is subject to external pressures – to changes in student preferences, in legislation, in funding, in admissions policy and numerous other factors – to a far greater degree than it was 20 or even 10 years ago. We have to adapt, to be flexible, to respond to what students want. Where there are fewer students wanting to study certain languages, for example, we have to be aware of that and plan accordingly. It would be irresponsible for the University to plan its course offering in any other way, or indeed to refuse to respond to those changes at all.

Essentially, we have to respond to the world as it is, rather than as we would wish it to be. No University today – no large organisation of any kind – can afford to stand still.

  • ‘The proposed redundancies are short-sighted and do not ensure sustainability or safeguard disciplines within the department.’

– On the contrary, I believe changes are necessary to put Modern Languages on a sustainable footing for the future. We have worked hard to find a solution in which we could maintain all the current core languages – Russian, French, German, Spanish and Portuguese – rather than discontinuing some or all of these subjects, as other universities have done. The Review is intended to safeguard Modern Languages at Nottingham for the long term, and I believe it will do so.

  • ‘The proposed cuts do not enhance the student experience.’

– The proposal to create a single Department of Modern Languages and Cultures will mean a more coordinated approach in related subject areas, and will mean we can capitalise on existing strengths in Cultural Theory and Linguistics which are currently spread among different Departments. A single Department will also mean teaching approaches can be harmonised to improve the student experience and make it more consistent across Languages. Levels of resource will also be spread more evenly across the Faculty.

  • ‘The University has lost sight of the central foundations on which it was created – knowledge, understanding and education.’

– I completely disagree. Indeed, were that the case, I would not be working here. The founding principles of learning, excellence, discovery, longevity and partnership are as crucial to us today as they were when the first Nottingham degrees were awarded more than a century ago. Those core principles are reflected in our Strategy 2020, from the first word to the last. The challenge for the University’s leaders is to remain true to those principles while investing in and safeguarding our University for future generations. We are doing exactly that.

  • Letters of concern from academics, students and alumni have not been answered.

– This is not the case. Responses are being sent to all letters, from the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor. The large majority of correspondents have already received replies.

Thank you again for your comments, and for taking part in the ongoing conversation around the Portfolio Review in the Faculty of Arts. We are listening to students, staff and others, and we will continue to do so. I hope my responses have helped to address some of your concerns and to answer some of the questions that have been raised.

The Portfolio Review in the Faculty of Arts is still ongoing, and it has required us to make challenging decisions. But they are decisions that will help secure the long-term future of Modern Languages at our University.

Professor Sir David Greenaway, Vice-Chancellor

Tags: , , , , , ,


April 20th, 2016 at 6:02 pm

Harriet Andrews-Garth

The proposed cuts to the arts faculty do not enhance the student experience, they do not ensure quality of teaching and they are not in line with the core aims of the university. All courses are different, so a standardisation of class sizes and student to lecture ratios across the board is detrimental to students’ education. The implementation of project transform will only mean less support for students from departmental staff and year abroad staff. It will also mean losing the expertise of support staff id they are moved to other positions or made redundant.

April 20th, 2016 at 6:49 pm


The proposed cuts to the arts are a tremendous shame. I have been so happy at Nottingham so far and it is saddening to think that the vice-chancellor sees it fit to jeopardise teaching standards and moral in favour of infrastructure projects. I’d have previously strongly considered a masters at Nottingham. However, I must now assess my options. As much as it is kind of the vice-chancellor to refrain from closing the language faculty, numbers of students studying Spanish continue to rise nationally, so it is difficult to understand why there will be lay-offs in this department among others.

April 20th, 2016 at 6:55 pm

Stephen MacNeice

“I look forward to working with all of you as we create a sustainable, successful future.”

And what about those with no future at the university?

April 20th, 2016 at 7:05 pm

Rhianna Knikker-troke

Making Language and Arts teachers redundant does NOT maintain quality, ensure sustainability or safeguard diciplines within the department. Languages are by their nature highly interactive and it is essential that a high proportion of staff to students is maintained in order to provide a productive learning environment. A university is a place for learning and the expansion of knowledge. This means you need people, namely teachers who can share their knowledge with students. The staff are more valuable to this university than even the biggest, prettiest most expensive building you can imagine. If you would have some respect for your staff and students and listen to them then you would not be making redundancies.

April 20th, 2016 at 7:32 pm


Dear Professor Sir David Greenaway,
I was devastated to read this blog tonight as we had really hoped that your vision for the University was less short-sighted than that of the management. The cuts to language departments make absolutely no sense, even in this difficult recruiting crisis. The language departments have managed to sustain themselves, sometimes with difficulty, but always with dedication through these difficult times. They have managed to provide a world-leading education for students who would be barred through inequality in education from studying languages at universities like Cambridge and Oxford. Languages are an area that is considered one of national importance, with the government dedicated to improving the number of British people speaking foreign languages. The language departments have already lost so many staff through non-replacements, so why should they have to cut more. Why should the language departments be cut to pay for Project Transform, for aerospace engineering, for food process technology, for new buildings? How much are other departments contributing when their courses cost so much more to run than arts and humanities degrees? What you have not said in your blog is that the language departments are being cut because they are not financially valuable to the University. They produce some of the top research in the country, and are one of the few schools to make it into the top 5 at Nottingham in their discipline, but research value is not important any more it seems. You claim to be dedicated to internationalisation, whilst cutting the departments who live, breath and exist to promote international cooperation and understanding. I am very sad this evening, I thought that you were a more worldly and understanding Vice Chancellor than this. It is no wonder that Nottingham continues to do badly in league tables. The University has lost sight of the central foundations on which it was created – knowledge, understanding and education.
Best wishes,

April 20th, 2016 at 7:36 pm

Sam Wilkinson

It is very disappointing to see the Vice Chancellor writing in defence of the proposed redundancies in the Faculty of Arts, and for several reasons.

Firstly, because the consultation period for this proposal is open until 22nd April. This post very much gives the impression that the redundancies are foregone conclusions.

Secondly, because the Vice Chancellor and PVC for Arts (Prof Jeremy Gregory), have received 28 open letters from academics who work in the field of Arts and Humanities, indicating the extent to which these proposals are short termist. Only two have received the responses they deserve.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, because these proposals will have a profoundly negative effect on the student experience. Whilst the Vice Chancellor has found time to articulate the rationale behind these redundancies in this very eloquent update, he has thus far declined to meet with students to discuss the very real concerns about these proposals. It is incredibly disappointing that the University would show such flagrant disregard of the opinions of its students, particularly when it claims to be making these decisions in their name.

I studied for my BA at Nottingham,I studied for my MA at Nottingham, and I am currently studying for a PhD at Nottingham, and if these proposals do go ahead, they are not in my name.

April 20th, 2016 at 8:32 pm

Kathryn Martin

I have given almost ten years of my life to the University of Nottingham as an undergraduate, a masters student and now a PhD student in the faculty of arts. I have always been proud to be a member of this institution. Today I am ashamed. The disdain that the higher echelons of this university show towards the staff who work tirelessly to serve the student body and build and maintain the the international research reputation that the university is so proud of is sickening. I am ashamed to be a member of an institution that treats my peers, colleagues and friends as invaluable commodities, that pursues short sighted and isolationist policies in the name of profits and at the expense of those who make this university what it is. All those involved in this decision making process should be ashamed of themselves.

April 20th, 2016 at 8:35 pm

Emer O'Driscoll

Incredibly disappointed to see this defense of devastating cuts to the CLAS. Disregarding the value of language education will be damaging on so many levels in the long term.

April 20th, 2016 at 9:21 pm

Isabel Story

Nottingham is an internationally recognised university across all academic disciplines. This is a reputation to be rightly proud of and it should strive to continue to be at the forefront of education. With a global footprint, an international outlook, and a financial footing that is the envy of other institutions it could truly have been at the forefront of education. It could have chosen to make a real statement about its commitment to educational excellence and its support of outstanding research and teaching across all fields, because education is not measured by profit margins. It could have done this by choosing to support all university subjects, regardless of national trends, because it believed in the value of education. That would have been a real investment in the future of the university. However, by choosing to focus on selected areas – with a more clearly directly profitable outcome – the university is choosing not to commit to education. By actively choosing not to engage us, all of us, the people who make this university a place of education and not a sterile place of knowledge – its undergraduates, postgraduates, its part-time, casual and permanent staff – in an open dialogue about this review process the university has chosen not to honour its founding principles of putting the students at the heart of the institution, of valuing its staff and their research, and the pursuit of international excellence. That is neither a sustainable, nor a successful attitude.

April 20th, 2016 at 9:45 pm

Olivia Hellewell

Dear Prof. Greenaway,

I joined the University of Nottingham as an undergraduate student of Modern European Studies in 2006. I never imagined that I would be a part of Nottingham University for so long, but I never stopped wanting to learn, and staff in the departments of Russian and Slavonic Studies and Spanish and Latin American Studies encouraged me to push myself time and time again. Since then, I have gained a Postgraduate Diploma in Slovene with Distinction, worked as a professional translator and media analyst, passed an MA in Translation Studies with Slovene with a Distinction, and am now working on a PhD in Southeastern European Studies, teaching Spanish Translation and translating a novel. This may go some way towards explaining why I and so many of my fellow students and colleagues in the Faculty of Arts feel quite frankly crushed to read your disregard for our subject areas.

I’m afraid stating that ‘no departments are closing’ is of little consolation and certainly not a credible defence of these redundancies. The Arts Portfolio Review will result in the loss of Dutch, and puts other smaller languages at risk, such as Serbo/Croat and Slovene which make the University of Nottingham unique in its language offering. There is also an implication that students ought to be grateful for you keeping their departments open when in actual fact, the same level of all-round subject provision and quality of teaching is something which students ought to be able to take for granted, especially in today’s climate when they pay such a high price for their education. Despite claims made by management, a variety of academic and professional bodies have warned that it will be impossible to maintain Nottingham’s excellent record of language teaching and research if you proceed with these cuts. I am – we are – also saying to you, that despite your wish to believe that standards can be maintained with at least 12 fewer members of staff, this will not be the case. We are here on the ground, we see the work that takes place, and we are trying our best to convey this information to you. It’s a shame that no-one appears to be taking us seriously.

Imagine if Nottingham bucked the trend, decided it wanted to invest in its unique language offering and actively promoted this, as it does for its numerous projects in the sciences. Imagine being able to be one of the few remaining universities in the UK to be able to respond to the national need for more qualified linguists and cultural experts. These proposals show a profound lack of imagination and expose an ugly side of Nottingham which with these cuts is not placing education at the heart of its agenda.

April 20th, 2016 at 9:49 pm

Nicola Thomas

The Arts Portfolio Review, which amounts to large-scale cuts to languages departments, may appear to be justified by the University’s internal strategy. However, as a postgraduate student with experience of teaching and learning with the School of Cultures, Languages and Area Studies, it is obvious to me any many others that this strategy is misguided, short-termist and will fundamentally damage then University’s reputation at home and abroad.

It makes no sense to implement such extensive cuts to one of only three subject-areas at Nottingham in the top five nationally for research quality (according to the recent REF).

April 21st, 2016 at 12:41 am

Jake Mclellan

Dear Prof. Sir Greenaway

The Arts Portfolio review is something that has faced strong opposition from both students and staff. Myself and many other people feel very strongly about the proposed redundancies that are set to take place as a cost cutting excercise for the university.

Not only is the arts portfolio review detrimental to the languages departments but also the the faculty of arts as a whole, it will decrease module options available to students, increase the staff student ratio (even though Prof. Gregory claims there will be no effect) and lower the unique factors of Nottingham (Dutch, Slovene/Serbian/Croatian).

This entire letter somewhat defends the review and yet again focuses on this idea of cost and rebuilding. The question that must be asked is do students want staff or buildings? Me? I want staff.

This entire process has gone against what the majority of the students want and even through our efforts we have still not been listened too, even with the support of various major language associations- of which only few have received responses.

i wholeheartedly disagree with this review and I urge Prof. Sir Greenaway to look into this further.

April 21st, 2016 at 9:04 am

Molly Crozier

The cutting of staff in the languages department will do nothing whatsoever to enhance student experience, it will make it worse. The statement that all disciplines are being protected, meanwhile, is an outright lie, as the Dutch programme, one of only three in the UK and a factor which makes Nottingham stand out among languages faculties, is being cut. There is already a pitiful lack of Russian and Slavonics culture modules, and yet it is being proposed to cut some of the fantastic staff from a department which I have been proud to be a part of for the last four years. Frankly it is disrespectful to the kind of students Nottingham should be hoping to attract to assume that they are more interested in shiny new buildings than in the incredible teaching staff who are already here.

April 21st, 2016 at 11:26 am

Lauren Selfe

As the five various references to the “international” in this post exemplify, intercultural and linguistic knowledge has never been more important for the Higher Education sector, which now competes on a global stage for students and resources. The School of Cultures, Languages and Area Studies is the epicentre of such expertise at UoN. In addition, CLAS is one of only three REF units of assessment at Nottingham in the top five nationally for “research power”.

As such, the brutal cuts to staff in CLAS are not only short-sighted, but indicative of a ruling ideology that places profits, statistics and facilities over the pursuit of knowledge, learning and teaching as intrinsically valuable to global and social justice. I am deeply saddened by this proposed debasement of the excellent institution I joined 10 years ago.

April 22nd, 2016 at 11:25 am

Turan Munday

I think the cuts to languages staff are shambolic and unnecessary and from a personal opinion selfish. the uni may look like a ferrari with the swanky new buildings but without a great staff structure will perform like a toyota all these changes seem to neglect the students wishes and take away value rather than add value to the university

April 22nd, 2016 at 3:03 pm

Ricardo Rato Rodrigues

Dear Professor Greenaway,
I have joined this university firstly in the capacity of a language teacher and during a year and a half I have taught Portuguese to some of the most hardworking and dedicated students I had the pleasure to teach. Every single one of them went into the job market with very important linguistic skills, which made them thribe in their professional lives. In fact, not very long ago, Nottingham was considered the best university for employability and I’m sure the collective effort of my colleagues in the language departments has contributed to that.
To suggest that cuts in staff across the arts and languages will somehow increase international visibility and potentiate sustainability is simply contradictory and quite frankly reveals the lack of appreciation for the magnificent work staff has developed throughout the years.
In fact, as an example, I can use my personal experience as a PhD graduate from the Spanish and Portuguese department. I have attracted international funding from the Portuguese government, via the research council FCT (Fundação Ciência e Tecnologia). My grant has completely financed by said institution which means that my PhD programme was of no cost to the University of Nottingham. If anything, it was pure profit.
A very significant reason for the attribution of that grant was the quality of staff and research at the department, since the evaluating panel gave it maximum marks – proof of the quality and competitiveness of our staff.
It is not hard to imagine that if the proposed cuts go ahead,examples like mine will not repeat themselves in the near future.
Ricardo Rato Rodrigues

April 22nd, 2016 at 3:38 pm

A. Baker

As a alumnus of arts and social sciences departments at Nottingham I have to add my voice to those deeply skeptical of your claims here about the cutback of languages staff. I saw so many fine staff and passionate students contribute to the life and culture of Nottingham in my time and the university. These programs need to stay open and well resourced at the very least, because they are of vast social and cultural importance to the university and beyond. Changing them on the whims of the market is blinkered. That other universities have closed their languages schools when you have not is not a mark in favour of the current strategy Nottingham has adopted. It’s akin to celebrating the fact that one has only burned down the kitchen, instead of the whole house.

This seems to be an undignified path to champion global investment for new programs without the cultural work of translation and debate that goes in to making ‘global’ status meaningful beyond the raw exchange of cash and resources. It saddens me to see a new generation of students coming into languages and arts programs at Nottingham may suffer as a result.

April 25th, 2016 at 12:49 pm


Dear Professor Sir David Greenaway,

I strongly disagree with the University’s proposals to cut back languages staff. As many others have said, we cannot be a truly ‘global’ university without the cultural awareness that our academic specialists provide.

More than anything, what angers me is that as a disabled student, you are cutting back on the people who helped me most to achieve my degree through a lot of difficulties. It wasn’t the disability department that supported me most – it was actually the administrative and academic staff in my department.

The University has forgotten the people it should be serving – staff and students. My time at Nottingham has been made special by staff here who interact with students on a day-to-day basis – compared to highly paid managers, these should be the very last people to go.

I never as a student asked for a £40 million sports centre, and having been here since 2009 I was never consulted on whether I wanted one. No sports centre needs to cost so much. We need to compete on academic performance, not structural buildings. From working as a student ambassador, I have seen first hand that it is the teaching that attracts students here, not the buildings.

If really you must have them, why doesn’t the University at least use the high flyers in the architecture and civil engineering departments to design the structures first? Paying them and giving them that work experience would save a lot of money compared to hiring a large firm to do the work – and they could then look back and say that they have literally helped ‘build’ the future of the university.

The University should be reducing its wasteful spending before even contemplating cutting academic and administrative staff. I have seen classrooms get ‘refurbished’ when there was nothing previously wrong with them – even the surveyor I bumped into taking measurements said that the money wasted on this was eye-watering. And then the fabric frizbees that the final year languages students were freely given this year – that’s not going to help me get a job after graduation. Who thought that was a good idea? That’s not considering all the other areas of wasteful spending I see on a daily basis.

The whole concept that cutting staff would make us more sustainable is a contradiction. The idea previously argued that staff would be naturally lost by leaving anyway or going off sick is wrong – otherwise the university wouldn’t be proposing the redundancies in the first place and would just let natural events take their course.

It’s sad to see that the corporate body of this University sees its staff as disposable cogs in a giant wheel, instead of what they really are: people. People who do an outstanding job and have a true passion for bringing the best out of everyone. People who have their bills to pay, and may now face unemployment and poverty when they thought that their career was on track.

This is a very sad time for the University. I hope you remember what higher education is actually all about and change course, before the damage done is irreversible.

April 25th, 2016 at 7:22 pm

Caroline Williamson

There’s an expression for this in English (borrowed from the French proverb: Ne pas voir plus loin que le bout de son nez)

May 19th, 2016 at 7:01 pm

Lecturer from another School

A meta-comment: As someone who teaches some of you (not in CLAS), I think it’s a heartbreaking irony that these student responses are so clearly expressed and immaculately reasoned. It’s these very skills in critical thinking that the cuts threaten. The commenters themselves show what we stand to lose. It’s a lot.

Leave a Reply


Trusted Research update: changes to technologies requiring an export control licence

The UK Government has issued an updated UK Strategic Control List, introducing additional export control measures […]

Adelaide-Nottingham Alliance: join Vice-Chancellors at event celebrating global partnership

Staff, students and researchers are invited to join the Vice-Chancellors of the University of Nottingham and […]