next »

[panko]

Hi UK people,

What can you tell me about Southampton University for a mid-career position? What's the vibe about the uni and the city? I'm not from the UK, but have spent a fair bit of time there, although never in Southampton. The city seems pretty "mixed" but the university seems ok, not fantastic, but you know, mid-range. I see where it fits in things like Russell group and THES/QS ranks, etc. and a few other rankings, so I have some idea where it fits in the UK and world ranks. The area around Southampton looks really great: New Forest, Winchester, etc. are places I like.

Is the atmosphere in UK unis horrible right now, or not too bad? Things are pretty okay where I currently am, university-wise, so I don't want to go into a doom-and-gloom atmosphere.

I'm mid-career and ambitious, and looking for a change and challenge, although I have a pretty good gig where I am (except I dislike the city where I work... good job/good colleagues/bad city for me). So I'd want a good job, good pay, good city to live in... not much! The Highfield neighborhood looks pretty nice, and housing isn't too expensive from where I'm sitting.

I don't know; I'm looking for something new, and would prefer a top-five UK place, but not a lot of choice right now. I also want to be serious about an application; I have reason to believe I'd get an interview, but don't want to waste my time/energy and their money for a trip if I were short-listed, so want to proceed cautiously and not just AFTDJ or whatever you CHE forumites say.

Thanks, all.

[snape]

New Forest, Winchester very nice. Highfield is nice but probably too expensive for most academics to buy.

[sandgrounder]

Nothing wrong with Southampton but you need to be aware of the current state of affairs in English universities. In particular, you need to know about the government HE white paper and the impacts that will have on undergraduate recruitment and expectations. If you are in a subject area that is unlikely to recruit well at Southampton under the new parameters, you need to factor in a) there's no tenure in England and b) departments can be closed down. A browse through the online Times Higher Ed would give you the basics. Oh and depending on subject, you might want to ask about what research funding is realistically available these days. But to be honest no-one has a clue right now what things will look like in 5 years time - so it is risky.  Oh and you asked about morale - read qypt's thread further down the page to get a flavour - it's pretty awful everywhere. But it's a pretty part of England.

[panko]

Thanks for the information. Maybe not the best time to make the move to the UK - why bother moving to a system that is in a crisis mode? Based on preliminary conversations, I'd almost certainly (a) take a pay cut, (b) be assigned more undergraduate teaching, and (c) work in a weaker department/university than where I currently am, and (d) work in a less stable higher education environment. All for the pleasures of working in England? Hmm...I think I'll take a pass this time, and wait 'til next year and see what comes up. 

[american_abroad]

I can't comment on (a) to (c), but (d) depends a lot on where you are. IMHO Soton's biggest problem is its size (a little on the small side). Most RG unis are going to have war chests for recruitment, whatever the general weather in the sector. The RAE/REF mentality is just too embedded. This is esp. true if you'd be in the running for a Chair (full professorship). I'd put hard questions about future prospects in the dept to an insider before deciding not to apply. There are plenty of unis in the UK where I'd be worried about the ramifications of the WP, but Soton isn't really one of them. Although it is a shame they got rid of the dolphin logo.

AA

[mingus]

Nothing wrong with Southampton but you need to be aware of the current state of affairs in English universities. In particular, you need to know about the government HE white paper and the impacts that will have on undergraduate recruitment and expectations. If you are in a subject area that is unlikely to recruit well at Southampton under the new parameters, you need to factor in a) there's no tenure in England and b) departments can be closed down. A browse through the online Times Higher Ed would give you the basics. Oh and depending on subject, you might want to ask about what research funding is realistically available these days. But to be honest no-one has a clue right now what things will look like in 5 years time - so it is risky.  Oh and you asked about morale - read qypt's thread further down the page to get a flavour - it's pretty awful everywhere. But it's a pretty part of England.

Having worked in both North America and the UK, I am always puzzled by statements that "tenure does not exist in the UK".  Can you explain?


As far as I can tell, security of tenure exists in the What is different is the process one goes through to get security of tenure: in North America it is a long, rigorous process; in the UK it is a short probationary period that hardly anybody fails to get through.  (It seems there is a confusion between a process and the outcome of a process.

[mingus]

Nothing wrong with Southampton but you need to be aware of the current state of affairs in English
universities. In particular, you need to know about the government HE white paper and the impacts that will have on undergraduate recruitment and expectations. If you are in a subject area that is unlikely to recruit well at Southampton under the new parameters, you need to factor in a) there's no tenure in England and b) departments can be closed down. A browse through the online Times Higher Ed would give you the basics. Oh and depending on subject, you might want to ask about what research funding is realistically available these days. But to be honest no-one has a clue right now what things will look like in 5 years time - so it is risky.  Oh and you asked about morale - read qypt's thread further down the page to get a flavour - it's pretty awful everywhere. But it's a pretty part of England.

Having worked in both North America and the UK, I am always puzzled by statements that "tenure does not exist in the UK".  Can you explain?


As far as I can tell, security of tenure exists in the UK to the same extent as it does in North America.  That is, one can lose their job for gross misconduct,  closure of an academic unit, etc.  What is different is the process one goes through to get security of tenure: in North America it is a long, rigorous process; in the UK it is a short probationary period that hardly anybody fails to get through.  (It seems there is a confusion between a process and the outcome of a process.

[fourhats]

Tenure was abolished in the UK some time back.  In the US, the process is fraught and prolonged, but if successful, it guarantees you a position until retirement (unless a department or program is ended, or in the case of gross misconduct).  In the UK, there is no such guarantee, even after the probationary period has ended.

[the_walrus]

Tenure was abolished in the UK some time back.  In the US, the process is fraught and prolonged, but if successful, it guarantees you a position until retirement (unless a department or program is ended, or in the case of gross misconduct).

The same is true in the UK---these are precisely the types of conditions under which you can be sacked in the UK.  There is no termination without cause.  Only termination for cause or redundancy as a result of program elimination, so far as I understand.

In the UK, there is no such guarantee, even after the probationary period has ended.

This is not true as stated (see above).

My understanding of what US tenure has traditionally offered that the UK equivalent does not offer is job security in the event of program elimination.  Although I suspect this is generally still the case at many places, recent events in Florida, Louisiana, and probably elsewhere suggest that it is not a legal requirement.  So, best I can tell, Mingus is correct, and there is effectively no difference.

The perception of a difference generally comes, I think, from Americans' lack of understanding of the differences between UK and US employment law.  While in the UK there is no termination without cause in *any* permanent position inside or outside of academia, in the US there is.  What US tenure still does, as I understand it, is to preclude termination without cause, something which doesn't exist in the UK anyway, hence the functional equivalence of permanancy of tenure in the two countries, despite the UK lacking what it used to call tenure (which, as I understand it, not only protected against termination without cause, but also protected against redundancy in the face of program elimination.  Or at least it was meant to, even if it seems that it actually didn't, as evidenced by this:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=104896&sectioncode=26
)

So, my own sense on job security in the US/UK, for what it's worth, is that you are only safe to the extent you in a good program, in a well-regarded, respectable university that would have something to lose reputation-wise by getting rid of a good program.  And even then, it's not entirely clear to me.  See recent events at Kings, for example. 

[sandgrounder]

I can't comment on (a) to (c), but (d) depends a lot on where you are. IMHO Soton's biggest problem is its size (a little on the small side). Most RG unis are going to have war chests for recruitment, whatever the general weather in the sector. The RAE/REF mentality is just too embedded. This is esp. true if you'd be in the running for a Chair (full professorship). I'd put hard questions about future prospects in the dept to an insider before deciding not to apply. There are plenty of unis in the UK where I'd be worried about the ramifications of the WP, but Soton isn't really one of them. Although it is a shame they got rid of the dolphin logo.

AA

I work for a RG university - we've been told that after a transition period there will be no cross-subsidy of departments. You have to be self-sustaining either through research income or student recruitment. Given that it's virtually impossible for research income to sustain any standard non-STEM department (unless it's a really applied department but even then I'd wonder) then any subject that can't recuit well in the off-quota AAB grade market is going to be in trouble. Ditto potentially anything that's heavily reliant on international students given the student visa policy mess. It's a set-up that's going to lead to an institutional logic that will allow strong departments to get stronger and weaker ones to struggle. While I certainly don't think any RG university will go under in England under the new regime (although it's sadly likely that some others will not survive in their current form) I really doubt that the RG universities will all be teaching as many subjects as they do now in five years time. If you look at what's been closed or threatened with closure at e.g. birmingham, Liverpool or Glasgow in the last few years (or as the_walrus points out King's) you can see the sorts of subjects that might find it tough.

@ the_walrus My colleagues from the US still insist that it's much easier to close a dept in the UK than the US. Maybe they're wearing rose-coloured spectacles though...

[the_walrus]

@ the_walrus My colleagues from the US still insist that it's much easier to close a dept in the UK than the US. Maybe they're wearing rose-coloured spectacles though...

I suspect that this is true in the general case.  UK universities other than Oxbridge seem to be much more top-down managed than comparable US universities.  This allows for a crazed manager to go on a killing spree without anyone being able to stop him (because it usually *is* a him...).  Viz Kings.

[mingus]

Tenure was abolished in the UK some time back.  In the US, the process is fraught and prolonged, but if successful, it guarantees you a position until retirement (unless a department or program is ended, or in the case of gross misconduct).  In the UK, there is no such guarantee, even after the probationary period has ended.

What exactly do you mean by abolished?  At the UK university I work for (and at another I worked for), there are many people who are just killing time until retirement but can't be fired.  They can lose their jobs only in cases such as gross misconduct, closure of an academic program, etc.  How exactly does that differ from the North American situation? 

As far as jon-secutity goes, can you actually give examples real practical differences between a "tenured"  North American academic and a post-probationary UK academic? 

[mingus]

Tenure was abolished in the UK some time back.  In the US, the process is fraught and prolonged, but if successful, it guarantees you a position until retirement (unless a department or program is ended, or in the case of gross misconduct).

The same is true in the UK---these are precisely the types of conditions under which you can be sacked in the UK.  There is no termination without cause.  Only termination for cause or redundancy as a result of program elimination, so far as I understand.

In the UK, there is no such guarantee, even after the probationary period has ended.

This is not true as stated (see above).

My understanding of what US tenure has traditionally offered that the UK equivalent does not offer is job security in the event of program elimination.  Although I suspect this is generally still the case at many places, recent events in Florida, Louisiana, and probably elsewhere suggest that it is not a legal requirement.  So, best I can tell, Mingus is correct, and there is effectively no difference.

The perception of a difference generally comes, I think, from Americans' lack of understanding of the differences between UK and US employment law.  While in the UK there is no termination without cause in *any* permanent position inside or outside of academia, in the US there is.  What US tenure still does, as I understand it, is to preclude termination without cause, something which doesn't exist in the UK anyway, hence the functional equivalence of permanancy of tenure in the two countries, despite the UK lacking what it used to call tenure (which, as I understand it, not only protected against termination without cause, but also protected against redundancy in the face of program elimination.  Or at least it was meant to, even if it seems that it actually didn't, as evidenced by this:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=104896&sectioncode=26
)

So, my own sense on job security in the US/UK, for what it's worth, is that you are only safe to the extent you in a good program, in a well-regarded, respectable university that would have something to lose reputation-wise by getting rid of a good program.  And even then, it's not entirely clear to me.  See recent events at Kings, for example. 

North American "tenure" does not prohibit job losses in the event of closure of academic programs.  This has always been understood to be so and is written into the conditions that govern "tenure".  That is rarely gets tested is independent of that. 

[the_walrus]

North American "tenure" does not prohibit job losses in the event of closure of academic programs.  This has always been understood to be so and is written into the conditions that govern "tenure".  That is rarely gets tested is independent of that. 

I do believe, however, that at least for some universities, it is supposed to be the case that they are meant to declare financial exigency in order to eliminate people in the event of program closure.  I do not know, however, whether it is a legal requirement.  And even if it is, there seem to be recent cases (again, in FL and LA) in which that practice has not been adhered to.

Certainly in the case of the UK, there is no requirement, legal or otherwise, to do so.

[mingus]

@ the_walrus My colleagues from the US still insist that it's much easier to close a dept in the UK than the US. Maybe they're wearing rose-coloured spectacles though...

I suspect that this is true in the general case.  UK universities other than Oxbridge seem to be much more top-down managed than comparable US universities.  This allows for a crazed manager to go on a killing spree without anyone being able to stop him (because it usually *is* a him...).  Viz Kings.

On the other hand, getting through the probationary process in the UK is a doddle compared to the "tenure" process in North America: basically as long as one does a half-decent job and does not do anything stupid (such as sexually molesting the Dean's dog), one is in for the long haul.  Not surprisingly, the UK system has far more people who really ought to be shown the door, especially in the lesser universities.