Times Higher Education ranks UKZN in the Top 400 Page 3

12YOUR MONTHLY CAMPUS NEWSPAPER • VOLUME 9 • NUMBER 9 • SEPTEMBER 2012The UKZN GriotOf Bulls and BearsKEYAN G TOMASELLIMY column on “Illiterates”drew a response fromJohann Mouton whoseCentre for Research on Evaluation,Science and Technology, regularlycontracts to undertake surveys ofissues on knowledge productionand post-graduate studies in thetertiary education sector. Ifanybody knows what threats faceuniversities, it is surely he. Johannobserves: ‘We found in a recentstudy that the results ofindiscriminate admissions policy atthe postgraduate level is havingdisastrous effects.’A few universities that havebeen accepting any doctoralstudent (no selection/ no screening)have a drop-out rate of 90 percent!‘Just think of the completewaste of faculty time in trying tosupervise this cohort where only 10percent eventually graduate. Notsurprisingly, top universities areactually going the other route andputting in more stringent selectioncriteria at this level’.I like to think that UKZN isfollowing this ‘other’ route.Johann’s response reminds meof one of the Corollaries ofMurphy’s First Law: ‘It isimpossible to make anythingfoolproof because fools are soingenious’. The ingeniouscomprise two constituencies in theacademic sector: a) the fools whoapply for PhD studies; and b) thefools who admit them.The administrators who setunrealistic ‘targets’ (for admission)are not themselves responsible forensuring throughput. Thatdaunting task is allocated to thehapless, increasingly underpaid,exhausted academic sector, that isdumped with the job of doing theimpossible amongst all the otherimpossible things they are expectedto deliver on. If they fail, they arethe ones who are punished forfailing to achieve their KPAs, notthe ingenious fools who admittedthe ingenious applicants in thefirst place. As Murphy’s Third Lawstates, ‘Nature always takes sideswith the hidden flaw’. Well, nowthat flaw has been exposed byMouton. The fools who admit justanyone to doctoral programmeswork in terms of Wozencraft’s Law,‘If you make all of your plans onthe assumption that a particularthing won’t happen, it will’. So,those institutions that accept PhDapplicants without screening butwho expect success have a 90percent drop out rate when theyexpect a 90 percent pass rate.Why do educated policy makersand senior management make suchgrievous and obvious errors?These start with the way thatuniversities are funded, their needto pay their bills, and the newinstrumentalist notion thateducational institutions are simplyproduction lines that enrol“clients” who are processed via thepromise of learning, and pushedout at the other end of the factory afew years later, whether or not theyare educated or literate.On graduating the students, theuniversity then applies for the statedosh now owed to it, but it does notcalculate the per item cost ofprocessing the finalproduct/client/student. Thisoccurs because universities are notrequired to balance their budgets.Rather, they defer debts –sometimes endlessly, and often forideological reasons. The verycostly production line where 90percent of the products disappearinto the waste bin prior to finalbenefication, is funded by thetaxpayer who – as we all know – is abottomless financial resource. So,some universities accept illiteratesbecause they pay fees (or are trottedout in the name of equity) and thusare exploited as a kind of futuresbull market offering a vicariousdebt security, while the real debt,hidden in the internal accounting,pounds academics in the face, andseriously disadvantages the capable10 percent of PhD students who dopass. And, we all know that the Lawof Asymmetrical SupervisoryDistribution ensures that the 90percent who will inevitably fail willconsume 1000 percent+ of allacademic resources, leaving littleleft over for the 10 percent whosimply and successfully get on withtheir studies – irrespective ofwhether or not they get adequatesupervision.The contradictions, of course,are clear. Rudin’s Law states that ‘Ifthere is a wrong way to dosomething, most people will do itevery time’. As a comprehensivetheory of mistakes, Rudin’s Lawportends worse to come. This formof delusional accounting admitsthe ‘proposition that it is entirelypossible to pick up a piece of shit bythe clean end’. (I cannot referencethis delightful comment as itarrived in email inbox withoutattribution. I do sometimes lovemischievous email.).While the academics know whatthe problem is (no screening,massification, mindlesscorporatisation), management thenblames the academics for the 90percent failure rate. Theypredictably do this by demandingreports from academics, usually ina highly structured format. Thedesign and issuing of uniformforms becomes uniformlyobsessive, setting forth a flood ofreports and policy statements,computer runs, new surveillancesoftware, employing ever moretechnocrats who might know theirsoftware (but often they don’t).Usually they don’t know squatabout education. When this ispointed out to them they retort thatsuch critics ‘are resistingtransformation’. This is the FirstLaw of Academic Management.Punish the academic sector forproblems not of their own making.The second is Merrett’s Caveat onthe Principle of Management byDisorientation. Never let theinstitutional sector settle, andcreate the impression oftransformation by endless (andoften fruitless) restructuring.UKZN has been involved inrestructuring ever since I arrivedhere in 1985. It’s like being on atreadmill that more often than notgoes nowhere. Let’s get theoperational systems workingproperly before we change thestructures!That’s why the state and someuniversities employ consultantslike Mouton to reveal the obvious.The obvious, however, is notobvious when it is so obviouslyobvious. Researchers are able toquantify and reveal the obviousbecause those to whom a problemshould be obvious are obviouslypedagogically illiterate.Management’s optimistic belief inbull markets is counteracted by thepessimistic academic sector’sknowledge of bear markets thatfollow the bull. There has to be abalance.Keyan G Tomaselli is Director ofThe Centre for Communication,Media and Society. He’s used totalking a lot of bull.Disclaimer: The viewsexpressed in this columnare the author’s own.JOMBA!OPENING NIGHTA SENSATIONALDANCE HITMELISSA MUNGROOTHE Elizabeth Sneddon Theatrewas packed to capacity for theopening night of the 14th JOMBA!Contemporary Dance Experiencepresented by UKZN’s Centre forCreative Arts (CCA) with principalfunding from the National LotteryDistribution Trust Fund.The act for the night featureddancers from the Flatfoot DanceCompany and Ensemble BATIDAwho performed A Spring (two)matter, which is the music and storyof Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring, partof collective memory for dancersand musicians over the past 100years.It tells of the struggle betweenthe positive and the negative humanbeing in thinking and acting; twoopposites that battle each other,trying to blend and exist peacefully,or convincing one another to aimfor a better co-existence.Patricia van Deutekom, JuliaWilson, and Lerato Lipere of theFlatfoot Dance Companyperformed A Spring (two) matteron the opening night of JOMBA!Produced by the Publications Unit, Corporate Relations Division. Tel: 031 260 8737/8370/4249. www.ukzn.ac.za UKZNDABA is printed on environmentally friendly paper.