Being at such a distance does give one a more objective view, even when your own employer is being criticised publicly, although the more cynical amongst you may end up stating "Well, he would say that anyway"!
Therefore, the question that has been going through my mind is whether BBC Wales, in its quest to get a journalistic "scoop", has made an error of judgment with regard to its Week In Week Out programme on the University of Wales and its links with Fazley College? In particular, I have had a number of comments about a story that is emerging from Malaysia, where Fazley College is based.
According to various newspapers including the Malaysian National News Agency and the Malaysian Star, there is a very different view of the issue of the ownership of the college, the main issue that has been highlighted by the BBC and by the Minister of Education in subsequent stories.
Indeed, whilst the BBC seems to have given the impression that it is a prerequisite for someone to have academic qualifications to run an educational establishment, the Higher Education Minister in Malaysia, Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin, has said that academic credentials are not a prerequisite for anyone to own colleges in Malaysia.
To quote the Minister “such credentials were only necessary for members of the academic staff. In Malaysia, anyone can apply to start a college as long as the academic staff are qualified and meet the requirements set by the ministry”.
What is the potential fallout from this?
As one commentator noted last night “the education ministers of those countries might have grounds to feel insulted and belittled by high-handed criticisms from ministers in the UK who condescendingly and ignorantly graft their own standards and cultural mores upon them, with scant regard for cultural differences”.
That may be a bit strong but the point is well made (although I would substitute "journalists" for "ministers in the UK").
More relevantly, there has been little reference in BBC reports to the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), the organisation that makes the final judgment call on the quality of the course offered by Fazley College.
Ironically, the most recent audit of overseas provision between the University of Wales and Fazley International College was reported in March 2010 and can be found here. Please read this for yourselves and form your own judgment of the QAA’s review of the quality of the course provision at Fazley College.
Perhaps the problem now is that BBC Wales has committed the ultimate journalistic sin and is in danger of becoming the story itself. Indeed, some have begun to question why the programme did not seek advice over the critical issue of ownership within the Higher Education system in Malaysia and chose to underemphasize the positive outcome of the QAA report into Fazley College?
Given the fact that ownership is not an issue within Malaysian Higher Education and the QAA has already undertaken a detailed report into Fazley College with no major issues raised, then, as another commentator notes, how could the University of Wales have “hurt the reputation of Wales” and brought “the name of Wales into ridicule” as suggested by the Minister?
The real question is why the BBC has gone out if its way to turn what was a relatively weak piece of journalism into a direct attack on the University of Wales? I know from emails received over the last couple of days that some are beginning to question the motives behind this attack and, more relevantly, why they have now dragged the Minister of Education into making comments which, at best, were unwise in the context of the validation process within overseas institutions?
However, what seems to have been forgotten by everyone reporting on this issue is that the judgment on the quality of the courses validated by the University of Wales is the remit of the QAA, not the BBC nor the Welsh Assembly Government. More importantly, the QAA has just completed its periodic institutional review of the entire University of Wales (including its validated provision), and the publication of that outcome cannot come quickly enough.
In Wales, there is an overriding sense of chwarae teg (fair play) in public life and one can only hope that it remains one of the real strengths of the society in which we live in.
Certainly, if I were the Minister, I would be asking the QAA for an advanced copy of this report as soon as possible. This would ensure that any further comments on the quality of courses at the University of Wales are based on the considered and detailed judgment of the organisation responsible for academic standards across UK higher education and not the subjective reporting of a thirty minute programme.
Comments
The BBC seem to hold a view that pretty much any link with 'Johnny Foreigner' is likely to lead to trouble - or even misguided from the outset.
Certainly, there are many challenges that need careful, responsive and robust management when collaborating in any manner with another institution. I think it's fair to say that often, home institutions can often be very lacking in the necessary skills. My 20 years' experience of the Welsh uni system certainly didn't leave me thinking: these are capable people. They're not.
Take, for example, the politically-forced 'strategic partnership' between Bangor and NEWI. Bangor knew it was a crap deal, but they also feared the Assembly and what being reluctant to join hands might mean for their financial position. So they pushed the matter through Council without much of a chance for anyone to raise concerns. A year later, the cynics were proven right, and the whole thing fell apart, at least as far as it was originally envisaged.
The point being that, when things need good, strong management, Welsh university management often isn't up to the task. I see no problem at all with a businessman, academically qualified or not, 'owning' an educational establishment and even running it - with the help of academics and a good quality assurance scheme, such as there appears to have been.
But I do have a problem with Welsh universities being managed by academics who have done nothing other than academicise (sorry, my 'Bushism' for the day!) Being a good academic doesn't necessarily make you a good manager. In fact, my experience is that it mostly precludes you from being a good manager.
So, yes, the BBC have stirred some stuff up here that is really a non-story. It's silly to suggest that, with so many link-ups, now an essential feature of running a modern educational establishment, if only for financial rewards, that there will be some mistakes and embarrassments somewhere. But, equally, the story does rekindle a debate about how well Welsh universities are managed, and how reluctant they have historically been to embrace good, modern management practices.
The next trouble will undoubtedly be the over-investment in China; all unis are busy cashing-in on the vast opportunity, but with little managerial consideration for the serious effects if this totalitarian regime decides for some reason to change the rules. The Chinese have long refused travel privileges at short notice with no good reason many times, leading unis to scramble to their financial models to see what will happen next. We need better than this.
Lastly, Lady Justice isn't blind - she's fully unmasked on top of the Old Bailey. We prefer her that way, if only to ensure she looks at photo evidence properly!
(a) be personally abusive on those on both sides of the argument, including the Minister.
(b) make racist comments
(c) try to pretend to be several posts as "different" anonymous contributors.
(d) giving someone else's name when you are clearly not that person (have you never heard of statcounter)
The BBC team have given their view; I have given mine, and we have both done so without hiding under the comfort blanket of anonymity.
Therefore, unless commentators are happy to give their names, then in this instance, don't bother commentating.
Being in transit between Copenhagen and Boston, I just don't have the time to make a judgement call on whether you are genuine or not.
Much too much of it at the moment.
May be if the Universities were properly funded they wouldn't have to go chasing foreign contracts other than the ones that have a prestige value.
This is one instance and I can't comment as I have no idea who the people and organisations involved are. May be the minister should flag up the good connections and contracts not just an allegedly bad one to balance the argument.
Certainly your point about being in possession of all the facts before commenting is a good one for any politician.
"The University's collaborative provision is both large and complex, focusing on
franchising programmes to further education colleges (FECs) in Wales, and
arrangements for direct delivery and advanced standing with a significant number of
institutions across the world. Collaborative provision is overseen by the Collaborative
Committee of Academic Board. Quality assurance is achieved through the normal
University of Glamorgan
Institutional review: findings
processes of the University, enhanced where necessary to take account of the higher
risk and particular characteristics of collaborative working. The University expressed
confidence in these arrangements. However, the review team found that this
confidence was misplaced. Quality assurance processes were found to be
implemented inconsistently and oversight by the University was incomplete.
Furthermore, the failure to ensure that signed legal agreements are always in place
before students commence collaborative courses was seen to have the potential to
put quality and standards at risk."
Enough said.