Talk:University of Bedfordshire/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Earlier debate
- This section is mainly in reverse chronological order
There are lots of ways of verifying information and one can not expect everything to be online. I have not received any information from Bedfordshire denying any of the points that I have raised, until they do I intend to persist.
Here are some questions to ask Bedfordshire (and check with HEFCE etc):
i) How many students did Luton have on its third semester programme (by year) and of these how many were: a) new students? b) staff? c) current students doing an extra free module?
ii) How many complaints of a) racism, b) bullying and c) how many whistleblowers, they received information from. These broken down by year, outcome and faculty.
Asking direct questions about the Head of Technical Staff etc might also be worth perusing.
Why is everyone else hiding their identities?
Alfred Vella alfred_vella@hotmail.com
sounds like propaganda of a decrier...
show me your proves and i may change my opinion but the right now it sounds like nonsense
In its first week of existence Bedfordshire is showing that its just Luton going by another name. I hope that anyone who can will send information to me (addresses below) and call for the public enquiry into the corruption at Luton ASAP.
Alfred
I do think it is amusing that the (somewhat desperate?) defenders of the University of Luton are so concerned with trying to outweigh all the bad news about that institution that they now simply repeat University PR verbatim, with quotes such as:
"The Government has also chosen Luton as a Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning in 2005, and awarded it £3.3m in recognition of our outstanding work in helping and supporting student learning"
Of "our" outstanding work?
Surely they must realise that is this kind of spinning that encourages others with a more realistic view of this institution to persist in this editorial dispute?
Ian,
I agree that my comments are negative. This is because lots of hype is written about them by people who know little of what actually went on there. Unlike, HEFCE for example, I was party to the meetings that discussed the overtime that was being paid to the admin staff so that they could come into the university to prepare documents that should have been given to students 6 months earlier. I saw documents regularly being doctored or fabricated. Minutes of meetings being misreported, evidence of errors being ‘lost’. I found unsat exam papers on the public area of the network etc etc.
I witnesses the bullying of staff and students and attempted to mitigate against this as best I could until the senior manager involved offered my Headship to three others, with only the third, the least qualified and one who had failed to make the original second interview for the post thought that he could have it. He was mistaken.
I interviewed the senior management team and told them what was going on only for nothing to be done. I had many meetings with the others that had formally complained about the same Dean as I had and later were found to have been bullied. I was told by these that the bullying continued so that one left of her own accord and the other was eventually sacked.
I could (and will elsewhere) go on but if you want to be balanced you might get my drift!
I have one qualification that many others do not – I was there, I saw, I complained, I was offered cash to shut up.
I wont!
Alfred
Alfred,
You make the point that "except for a few 'advertising' type statements the statements seem mainly to be facts". That may be true, however, your additions consist of negative points picked out from an equally balanced document... Placing your views at the top of the page (above the fold) in a block could be seen as unfair.
In reply to your quote from the rector of Imperial College London: Professor Les Ebdon, vice-chancellor of Luton University, was suprised by the remarks:
"It's an absolutely extraordinary comment to make, not least because we don't do a maths degree at Luton, so he didn't quite get his facts right."*
In a letter to Hefce, which the organisation has released, with Sir Richard Sykes' (rector of Imperial College London) permission, he clarified his position and comments:
"My unfortunate allusion to mathematics at Luton was intended to illustrate the diversity and differences - in mission, purpose and courses offered - within our higher education system and the way they are funded," he wrote.
"The unreported part of my comment on that issue was 'Universities shouldn't all be treated the same. A few stand on the international stage and need to be funded differently'.
"Certainly, I intended no slight or damage to Luton and I have since made this point both to the vice chancellor, Professor Les Ebdon and to Sir Robin Bingham, chancellor of Luton."+
In March 2006 Sir Richard Sykes' salary became the center of attention amongst Imperial College staff and students after the University paper, Felix, published a front page article highlighting how much he was paid. Sir Richard Sykes receives a pay-packet £305,000 a year, the highest of all Rectors of government funded univerities.±
Kris [*see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3502920.stm] [+see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3589409.stm] [±see http://www.felixonline.co.uk/v2/article.php?id=3040]
Ian,
As far as I can see, except for a few 'advertising' type statements the statements seem mainly to be facts. I appreciate that this and probably any article about what the rector of Imperial College London refered to as a 'third-class' institution*, will be controvercial but balance is needed so that readers do not get the view that Bedfordshire is one of our great universities.
Alfred
[*see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3502920.stm]
Alfred,
Yes I am, I have had previous (pleasant!) experiences of Luton though...
Tim
Tim,
are you independent of Luton/Bedfordshire?
I mentioned that I have discussed the bullying issue with the person who was deputy vice chancellor in 2000. I have spoken to many students and staff as well as the Health and safety executive and others on these topics.
I was one (of many) who was bullied by a Dean of Faculty. I will make the evidence (at least that which is not confidential) available on the internet in due course but of course I would prefer for evidence that was agreed with the university.
Alfred
Alfred,
Touché!
I wouldn't want you to be concerned about me, I am in fact a Wiki...
Tim
Tim,
'you have an irrational vendetta' I hope that you have proof of this!
I am concerned that you do not say if you are a Wiki or a Luton/Bedfordshire person. I am unable to post personal details of others without knowing whom I am posting to.
Alfred
Alfred,
Is is becoming increasingly obvious from your persistence and times of posting that you have an irrational vendetta towards the University. I shall be requesting information from the University regarding the issues you have raised as well as other relevant information.
Tim
Tim, and all,
The University has not denied (at least to my knowledge) that:
a) those mentioned in my contribution have indeed complained about bullying. b) Staff and students (including a Greek) have likewise complained of racism
When I talked to Professor Robinson about a) she did not deny my statement.
The Health and Safety Executive confirmed that bullying had apparently taken place and the bully went unpunished.
I think that it is a pity that you are too embarrassed to identify yourself and your affiliation. Anyone can claim to be ‘Tim Moyles’.
Alfred,
Tim Moyles, as stated on my login...
Tim,
can you identify yourself?
Alfred
Alfred,
Were you one of the people 'allegedly' bullied? That appears to be the only conclusion I can draw as to why you appear to have such a vendetta against the University? Please elaborate on what you feel is 'the truth'? If you have evidence, please publish it!
Tim,
I was one of 3 who complained about the same person (Mr Mortimer Dean of Science, Technology and Design, and whos compliants were 'investigated' in April 2000. I and another were sacked, and the third left after claiming that the bullying continued after the complaints of the other two were upheld. I also know of other complaints.
Tim,
I know about the bullying and racism, as I have spoken to many witnesses. I have evidence but I want the university to provide all the evidence before I publish mine.
Sorry but I will continue until the truth is out or I am silenced by the courts
Alfred,
As stated below you have submitted a Freedom of Information request to validate your accusations of racism and bullying at the University. Until you are able to provide this evidence please leave any unsubstantiated claims off the University of Bedfordshire's entry, without accurate and relevant evidence to back up your claims your comments are liablous. As mentioned before, as the accuser, it is your responsibility to provide this evidence, not the University's.
Many thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Apologies, I will try and keep your edits in.
I was hoping that the anonymous editor would use email and/or talk to put messages but it seems that Luton staff are not able to use the technology properly.
Alfred
Alfred, if you do insist on continually changing this listing please add your content to the page rather than cutting and pasting from your outdated archived version. There are other changes and additions being applied and I am growing tired of having to correct these after you have over written them.
Tim
Wikipedia is not an advertising service but unfortunately this 'university' is attempting to con potential students into joining it.
The statement from the times that 40% of Luton students would not recommend alma mater speaks for itself.
The 1999 Mori poll, commissioned by the University, gives a good view of what the then staff thought of their management, I will make some of its findings public in due course but a copy was available in the Library for those wishing to see it.
I am happy to expand on my views and give evidence in public, under oath, with free questioning and on the record for my statements. I challenge Les Ebdon to do the same.
I have asked (28th July) the University to provide me with data under the freedom of information act and am collecting the statements of ex staff and students to be made available in due course.
Dr Alfred D Vella CMath, CEng Alfred_vella@hotmail.com
[Formerly Visiting Professor then Head of Computing then Head of Computing and Information Systems then Associate Dean, Computing Research and Development, The University of Luton, UK]
01908 648566 194 Buckingham Rd Bletchley Milton Keynes
The original article appears to have been deleted. What replaces it is a blatant blast at the school. It must be replaced with what was there before.
It's a shame to see such a school be blasted in the face of it's brand new plans and new ambitions considering it's new budget.
as long as i dont see any evidences, i wont trust you
Quality issues
I have added back in the section on quality that I composed for the old Luton entry. This is important material, which is all verifiable. I agree with one or two other editors that it is important to keep to the facts. It is only a few weeks ago that we had someone who claimed to be a Luton employee deleting reference to the redundancies that have occurred at his/her own institution. Unfortunately much of the previous discussion where I exposed this seems to have been deleted. NT 195.93.21.137 14:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
deletion of repetition
I have deleted a repetition (Ebdon's response to the Times tables). NT 195.93.21.137 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Editing by University of Beds staff?
I have discovered where the old discussion went.
Its at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Luton&oldid=35377561
During this discussion, one 'Pdean', who claimed to be university employee, was caught editing out material on the Luton redundancies. He also seemingly predicted that the University would try to intevene to bend the entry.
I do hope it does not.
NT 195.93.21.137 16:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is a biased condensation of an prolonged extensive discussion, moderated by an independent wikipedian. Only factually inaccurate material regarding redundancies was removed.
The above comment is in itself inaccurate.The material in the thread specified fully supports the interpretation offered. It is notable that the Wiki mediator did not uphold Pdean's complaints. --Mythpuncturer 08:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
'The neutrality of this section is disputed' box
Just so the rest of us know, please will the person who inserted the 'The neutrality of this section is disputed' box please outline exactly what they feel is controversial here? The procedure is as follows:
How to initiate an NPOV debate If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.
Incidentally, my recent addition (see above)contains accurate and fully verifiable data, and is careful to quote relevant University responses to QAA and newspaper criticism. NT Mythpuncturer 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
A few days ago, I asked the person who inserted the 'The neutrality of this section is disputed' box to follow the correct Wikipedia policy when there is a neutrality dispute.
They have not done so.
Some contributors (including myself) have problems with Alfred's insertions. If the box was placed above these, that would be one thing, because it would accurately reflect a real difference of opinion, which has been debated in this thread.
But as it is placed at the moment, it calls into question the whole Quality Issues section, which I think is unjustified, particularly as no-one has challenged the bulk of the material.
I therefore give notice that, unless the correct procedure is followed within the next seven days, I will be applying for the box to be removed. BV Mythpuncturer 16:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think I was the first to add any tag to the article [1], however it was not in the same place in the article at that stage, and as you can see since then the article has come on a long, long way. At that stage it read as a significantly slanted rant, airing the university's washing in public, really. I added the tag in order to try to get some other wikipedian's input and generally draw attention to the article, to try to make sure it is a representative picture of the university.
- I'm happy to confirm that I feel the issues which lead me to add the tag have been adequately addressed, but I think that a close eye needs to be kept on it to ensure that the content is fair and balanced. Ian3055 21:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. In that case, I will move the box to where it belongs. If anybody disagrees, please indicate. Mythpuncturer 07:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
After my exchange with Ian3055 this morning, I moved the box so that it is directly above the disputed section. Later, 194.80.219.38 moved it back without comment (it's subsequently been moved again). If 194.80.219.38 is unhappy with the new placement, would he/she like to explain why? Mythpuncturer 16:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Statement and information
In the light of recent editing of this page, I would like to appeal to all contributors to follow Wiki policy, and only include information that is relevant, factually accurate, and verifiable by others.
Second, I note that someone has recently added the allegation that the university has 'forced' its staff 'to take Luton courses to boost student numbers and inflate the University's record on widening participation'.
I very much hope the person who added this will justify it, but meanwhile I would like to point out that the Times Higher Education Supplement ran a story headed 'Luton asks staff to enrol on its courses' on 3 January 2003 which contained the following:
'Staff at Luton University have been encouraged to enrol as students on its courses in an apparent attempt to maintain numbers.
In a memo to all staff at the end of November, Luton's deputy vice-chancellor...warned them that it could lose funds for teaching because "substantial numbers of students are not yet properly enrolled... and students we don't know about we don't get paid for". She added: "If you have not yet registered on your own courses, you must do so by the end of next week."
Luton's vice-chancellor...this week strongly denied that there was any concerted attempt to artificially boost student numbers through mass staff enrolments'...
195.93.21.137 11:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
A member of STD admin staff approached me, almost in tears, and complained that she did not want to sign up for a Luton University course. I was shocked when she told me that she was being forced to.
Alfred [alfred_vella@hotmail.com] Alfred Vella 12:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
you claim that you are a whistle blower? was there any institution which supports that? was there any court hearing?
Controversy
There are far too many claims and assertions in this section and it is heading for deletion unless external references can be referenced for the claims. It is not enough that an editor asserts that he made them as this falls foul of the Wikipedia policy wikipedia:no original research. Please also see Wikipedia policy wikipedia:wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Concrete Cowboy 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I am with Concrete Cowboy on this. Material placed on Wikipedia must be verifiable - that is, someone else must be able to go away and check it. However, the right way to resolve this issue is as posted above. Mythpuncturer 13:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Citations don't have to be online. They just need to be available from an independent source with information about how to find them. --Concrete Cowboy 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Quite. Boat swain 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Controversy (2)
Hi Alfred, I've read your comments which are posted at the top of this thread, but I think that you are being a little bit unreasonable. Many people - most probably including yourself - would be exercised if the Luton/Bedfordshire management consistently published something here that was unverifiable by an average person. You can't have it both ways. Anyway, Wikipedia policy is clear on these matters. If you dispute this, please do now call in a mediator. If you go back to the old University of Luton discussion thread, you'll see it has been done before, and with illuminating results. This entry has had a troubled history already, and seems to have been targetted by some who are really averse to the truth. The only people who suffer in these circumstances are the readers. Please respect the rules. Mythpuncturer 16:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC) PS people are quite within their rights to post anonymously, and may do so for lots of different reasons.
Hi,
Menbers of the public are of course at liberty to put in a PID request to Bedfordshire and see what they get back. Much of the information that Bedfordshire, HEFCE and even the THES, publish about Bedfordshire is NOT independent but stems from reports and returns etc from Bedfordshire.
Alfred Vella 21:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
any evidences for this allegation? 212.99.213.94 14:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Governance
Hi guys, I'm new round here, but captivated. I'm just putting together a section on governance. Should be ready in a couple of days. As readers of the THES will know, there's lots of interesting stuff! Boat swain 19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
A taster
Hi Guys Just coudnt resist. Here's a little taster:
Times Higher Education Supplement
Whistleblowers: Luton 'misreported' student numbers
Phil Baty Published: 21 March 2003
Luton University "misreported" its student numbers to funding chiefs at a time when it was struggling to meet recruitment targets. Documents seen by The THES show that auditors from the Higher Education Funding Council for England concluded after a May 2001 audit that they "could not provide reassurance" over the reliability of Luton's student number returns, which are used to determine teaching funds...
Best wishes 'The Boat' Boat swain 20:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The odd thing is that in early 2000 I had an interview with a Tim Boatswain, then a Dean at Luton, where I told him what was going on. I do not know if he did anything about what I told him.
Alfred Vella 21:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, why not contact Boatswain, I believe he's at Huddersfield now, another up and coming institution? Hail the Boat! Boat swain 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Controversy (3)
Hi Alfred, Ive read your latest. I'm afraid that I still think you are being unreasonable. First, the points of fact. I grant you that, to the outsider, HEFCE has sometimes seemed loath to castigate Luton/Bedforshire in public. But there have been the odd very revealing flourishes. Thus, for example, when the HEFCE Chief Executive met the Luton/Bedfordshire Board of Governors in November 2003, he indicated that he had 'some considerable nervousness concerning the financial strength of the institution, over its student recruitment and forecasting record, and its estates strategy' (UL810), and this phrase was repeated in the press. So the record is not black and white. As to the THES, I think you are being unfair. It has regularly printed stories about Luton/Bedfordshire, and explained the anxieties of critics. But journalists should not be mouthpieces, and so it is entirely right that the university's views should be reported, too. Second, the points of procedure. Your mode of arguing is that you make an accusation, and then when challenged, tell the challenger to dig the evidence out for him/herself. Its like if I called you a thief, and then said, well, prove you're not. Absurd. But anyway, regardless, this is not how Wikipedia works. Its not an advertising space, or bulletin board for those with grudges (even reasonable grudges). Its a place where we collectively try to say something truthful about our subjects. And that means that evidence must be verifiable. That is, if you say something, I must be able to go away and reasonably easily locate the source, on the web or in a public library, so that I can check that the way that you have referred to it is accurate. As Ive already pointed out, if the Luton/Bedfordshire management insisted on posting unsubstantiated allegations here, those of us who post in good faith would be (and have been!) rightly incensed. If there is a rule for one, it must apply to all. So please, either provide the evidence for your accusations, or withdraw them. --195.93.21.137 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
i second that!
I couldn't agree more, if Alfred Vella's claims of racism/bullying can be backed up with evidence then they belong on the Wiki page. If they cannot, they should be removed, this is not the right place to air your grudges...
Edit of 22 August 2006
I have: (a) made it clear that the QAA subject reports were evaluating quality of education, and not teaching per se, by changing the word 'teaching' to 'courses'in line 2 of the Quality Issues section; (b) added in a relevant balancing comment re the QAA Dev.Eng reports; and (c) italicised newspaper and reference book titles. Mythpuncturer 16:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Irony
Just added a little on. Hail to the boat. Boat swain 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The trouble with Luton/Bedfordshire is that...
...you're never too sure what it is talking about.
Consider the following.
At any time for the past three years (at least), and as of five minutes ago, you could find the following on Luton/Bedfordshire’s website, under the ‘Why choose us?’ banner (press ‘Why choose us?’, then ‘Teaching quality’).
The University’s record – and hence reputation – for excellent teaching is due to its outstanding performance in official inspections, conducted on behalf of the Government by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). The QAA has awarded us no fewer than six ‘excellent’ teaching scores in a row for Building, Media, Biosciences, Nursing, Psychology and Design.
(see http://www.beds.ac.uk/aboutus/facts/teachingquality)
It is possible to check this statement, as the reports are online at
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reports/archive/oldInstReports.asp?instID=H-0026 and
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reports/archive/instReports.asp?instID=H-0026
It turns out that there are some surprises.
First, the way the statement is written implies that these are recent assessments (NB the construction ‘has awarded us’). They are not. The dates are as follows: 1997 (Building), 1998 (Communication and Media Studies), 1999 (Molecular Biosciences, Nursing, Organismal Biosciences, Psychology), and 2000 (Art and Design). It is worth noting, too, that here have been other QAA assessments subsequently.
Second, the QAA did not use the word ‘excellent’ (and the implication of putting it in inverted commas is surely that it did?).
Third, the QAA assessments in fact measured ‘quality of education’ not ‘teaching’ per se. However, as part of this, they did each include a section and rating on ‘teaching, learning, and assessment’, which is presumably what the paragraph is talking about when it refers to ‘teaching scores’.
However, in four of the six cases, Luton did not in fact gain the top mark. The results were as follows (with the QAA explanation of the mark appended afterwards):
Nursing, Psychology 4/4 (‘This aspect makes a full contribution to the attainment of the stated objectives. The aims set by the subject provider are met’).
Building, Communication and Media Studies, Molecular Biosciences, Organismal Biosciences, Art and Design 3/4 (‘This aspect makes a substantial contribution to the attainment of the stated objectives; however there is scope for improvement. The aims set by the subject provider are substantially met’).
It’s a strange old world.
(with thanks to you know who) TB195.93.21.137 07:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this kind of thing is a problem when it comes to accurately painting a picture of what is going/has gone on. It seems to be endemic right across the university sector. However, I did purposefully add in the dates of the QAA assessments to the main entry, and the word 'teaching' was also corrected. Incidentally, I have taken up this issue with the current VC, Mr. Ebdon, and await his response (he told me a couple of days ago that the page is being checked). NT 195.93.21.137 07:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Modification of quotation
88.107.95.63 (from Milton Keynes)
I understand that it is not always possible to check your facts but in the case of your 'modification' how about looking at your reference?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8164-2279500,00.html, says 'But a spokeswoman for the university says that its lawyers are on the case, adding that Vella left the university six years ago.'
I am happy to acknowledge that I was offered cash to go quietly but chose to fight on - and that's what I am doing. How about looking up the Employment tribunal records to see what Luton is accused of?
Alfred ps Unlike you I am not afraid to give my name, though I understand that many ex-Luton staff are!
Overseas students
There was an interesting piece in the Guardian on 29 August 2006 about the way that UK universities treat overseas students.
It contains quite a lot on Luton/Bedfordshire, including the following:
Some have tried and failed to get support from university services. Ting Zhao, a biological science undergraduate from China, worked part-time as a concert steward. "I wanted to relieve the burden for my parents and to break from my isolation in Luton," she says. There she met a 20-year-old colleague who moved into her flat. Six months later, when Zhao became pregnant, he left her. Unable to tell her parents about her pregnancy, and evicted by the landlord, she became depressed and unable to cope with her studies. Zhao went to Bedfordshire's international student advisers for help. "They referred me to the local law centre, which couldn't help me. They also accommodated me at a 'host family' who refused to keep me because I was pregnant." The university lost contact with her and never followed up her case. Zhao wandered around the streets, where she was found by her midwife a month before the birth. The university's international advisory service told Education Guardian: "The university has offered support to Ting Zhao, but we cannot discuss her case. As she has deferred her studies, the university is currently not responsible for her situation."
See http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1859929,00.html
NT 195.93.21.137 13:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Student body section
I have added a section on the student body. Please feel free to bulk out. 195.93.21.137 15:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The trouble with Luton/Bedfordshire... (2)
I was interested to read a piece by Lucy Hodges in the Independent on 3 August 2006, which began with the following:
Five years ago Luton University was on its knees. It was failing to recruit enough students for its courses and was forced to produce a drastic recovery plan by the Higher Education Funding Council (Hefce). That meant axing the whole of its humanities faculty…Academics were in revolt because of job losses, and rumours flew about a merger with the nearby University of Hertfordshire. As an institution with few cash reserves that languished towards the bottom of the league table for research, Luton was more vulnerable than most to a new funding regime that introduced a marketplace to higher education…
(see http://education.independent.co.uk/higher/article1210272.ece)
Ho, hum, I thought, five years ago, lets have a look. And sure enough, there’s plenty in the press, including some forthright comments by one Dai John, then Luton/Bedfordshire’s Vice Chancellor.
But hold on a minute, Mr. John isn’t talking about Luton/Bedfordshire being on its knees, etc.. Far from it. According to him, the university has just ‘had one of its best ever years, and has leapt 21 places in educational league tables in just three years’. And there’s a whole lot of other stuff, too, about Luton hitting targets, and doing this and that. Seems like the only flies in the ointment, for Mr. John, at least, are some ‘educational snobs’, who are ‘orchestrating’ a campaign of vilification… (see http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=541&ArticleID=279567).
What comes around, goes around? My head is spinning.
Controversy section - templates applied
I have applied the importance and cleanup-rewrite templates to the 'controversy' section, as the current content is completely unsuitable for wikipedia. I was tempted to delete the entire section on sight, but that would probably get reverted, so I will leave it for other editors with more knowledge of the issues to clean the article up.
In order for this to be in any way encyclopaedic, the section needs to comply with WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NN at least. The section appears to be filled with original research, apparently from some guy called Alfred Vella. The article needs to explain why the opinions of this person ("former Associate Dean") are important, and why they deserve a place in an article about this university. Then, if they are notable enough for inclusion, they need to be appropriately sourced and even-handedly dealt with. DWaterson 17:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
You are by no means the first person to have problems with this section. It is to be hoped that Alfred Vella will provide credible and verifiable evidence for his claims. By the way, this whole controversy started when people who claimed to be, or appeared to be, connected to Luton/Bedfordshire unilaterally edited out valid information and/or inserted advertising puffs. --Mythpuncturer 08:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Edit of 31 August
I have added in a link to the Times Good University Guide tables. --Mythpuncturer 14:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Edit of 31 August (2)
I have slightly re-written the fist paragraph in 'Investment' to make it more reader friendly. And I have then appended a second paragraph. --Mythpuncturer 15:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Controversy section - templates applied (2)
Can whoever put in the tags for importance, neutrality, citation needed etc be even handed. Much of the first part is un cited and much of the rest depends upon what Luton/Bedfordshire has told others. For example ' Hand in hand with financial viability, the university became much better at attracting students.'.
My comments are based on what staff and students have told me, what they have told employment tribunals and internal investigations. I have seen documents supporting my claims and my comments have not been denied by Bedfordshire as far as I know. If they do deny any then I will seek to publish evidence against such denials as widely as possible. Many who know Luton (and thus Bedfordshire) will only show their hand if necessary!
- But, Alfred (I assume this is you; please sign your comments with four tildes), this is an encylopaedia, not your personal website. You don't say what relevance these "claims" have to the article, and in any case Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for you to publish original research. Unless you can explain why it is essential that your comments remain, you should take them off and publish them elsewhere, such as your own website, where they will not harm the integrity of this article. Oh, and I agree that the beginning of the text is also uncited, though considerably less in dispute; please feel free to be bold and improve it with citations if you can. :-) DWaterson 16:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
well...show us the evidences. if they are public, someone should have them.
plus:
alfred, the way you act here is very childish. if kris doesnt want to give you his full identity, its his right. he has a right to be here like you, and he has a right to keep his identity to himself or post it when and where HE wants to. its not up to you to decide who should let their pants down or not.
Controversy section removed
I have been bold and deleted the "controversy" section, due to a lack of assertion of its importance or notability to this encyclopaedia article. It appeared to be mainly unsourced tittle-tattle and gossip, focussing on one individual of minor importance. I would like to make it clear that I have deleted this section as an interested Wikipedian - I have no connection with the University of {Bedfordshire/Luton} - indeed, I have never even been to Luton in my life. However, it was quite clear that this section was unsuitable for inclusion in the article, per the above talk page discussions. DWaterson 20:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I have been equally bold and added some bits back. If you wish to edit, try adding, and try to be even handed! Much of what is written by Luton has been equally unfounded and since much of the praise that they got from QAA was be fabricating documents, it is not substantiated.
Though you have claimed to have no connection with Luton (do you mean the 'university' and its staff?), you have not declared your interest. I have first hand experience in thier dishonesty.
thanks
Alfred
- Alfred, you do not seem to be getting the point here, which is disappointing in someone who is apparently an academic of some sort. This is an encyclopaedia - not your personal complaint board. If you open the Encyclopaedia Britannica, would you expect to find articles about unsubstantiated claims of bullying and other such miscellaneous gossip? Of course not. So why here? I see that one remaining quotation in the article is, "Alfred Vella, the university’s former associate dean for computing research and development told the Times “Wikipedia is not an advertising medium," - perhaps you should reflect on this, as it clearly doesn't extend to your own agenda at the moment. You are always free to set up your own website and take your complaints elsewhere, but please do not foist them inappropriately on wikipedia.
- I have to say, your most recent edit is even more inappropriate. You have removed quite correctly applied "{{fact}}" tags from unsourced statements, in a clear attempt to avoid the need to source statements in a reliable and academic fashion. This is contrary to Wikipedia policy. I suggest that you read the Wikipedia policy on maintaining a neutral point of view and the associated tutorial, in addition to the policies on verifiability, original research, the use of weasel words, and on citing sources. Those should give you a clear guide on how to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia in an appropriate way. Good luck.
- Finally, I clearly have declared my interest - that I have none. I have no connection to the university, its staff, undergraduates, postgraduates, finances, governance, or buildings whatsoever. I am merely a Wikipedia editor with too
muchlittle time on my hands to waste. DWaterson 23:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Three Revert Rule violation
User:Alfred Vella is now in breach of the three revert rule, having reverted text within this article four times within a 24 hour period:
- [2] at 00:17, 12 October 2006
- [3] at 10:12, 12 October 2006
- [4] at 10:47, 12 October 2006
- [5] at 12:33, 12 October 2006
No other editor is in breach. This revert war should cease immediately as it is contrary to Wikipedia policy. DWaterson 11:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Quality/Staff issues
reading these two sections the tone and style appears to be mainly a personal attack on the university. Whilst there probably should be a section on these issues for them to dominate the article so much turns it into a review rather than an encyclopedic article.
Any thoughts as i am tempted to slash most of it out.GazMan7 16:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds itself rather one sided. How about taking all of the unfounded advertising materials out first?
Alfred Vella 00:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with User:GazMan7. DWaterson 14:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Do they really believe what they say?
I have found this a very interesting experience as I have never (outside political debates) seen such a clique defend what I know from experience to be indefensible!
Do DWaterson, Concrete Cowboy, Kevin Doran and GazMan7 etc really believe that a Durham degree is worth the same as a Bedfordshire one? I do not know what Durham is like, but I had a high opinion of it before DWaterson came onto the scene. I know what a Luton one is like as I have given lots of Luton ones away (BSc, MSc and PhDs) and lots from good universities too!
I guess some of the posters have connections with the ‘University’ but may be too shy to own up (I know some staff have been so embarrassed).
Anyway please keep up the myths, we need lots of people with duff degrees to do all of the jobs that the rest of us do not want. And maybe one day Bedfordshire will give you an Honorary degree – that will do your street cred lots of good ;)
By the way, as far as I am aware, Ebdon has not denied any of my statements! I would be happy to debate these issues with him but I guess he cannot afford to tell the whole truth. Alfred Vella 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I can recall, I have not "said" anything whatsoever about the university, either positive or negative. Indeed, I am unable to do so as I know nothing of the University of Bedfordshire. I have only deleted or reworded existing text contributed by other editors which failed to comply with Wikipedia policy. DWaterson 17:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Same here. Not sure I understand being included in the complaint, since I have reverted some arbitrary deletions back to Alfed Vella's version. For example, my last copyedit reinstated his claim to be a whistle-blower. --Concrete Cowboy 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Alfred read what i have written. I am unconnected with the Uni, i curerntly live in Luton and am clearly aware of its reputation. However reading most of what you have written it is clear you have a personal greivance with the University which you wsh to play out on Wiki. Clearly that is unacceptable. There are plenty of places to review Universities etc but this in not one of them.GazMan7 10:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Umm, what? I don't believe i've ever said anything about this uni -- which, yes, i do attend -- on Wikipedia. I don't even know how you included my name in this. I've only ever said negative things about the uni, on my blog. I don't think i've ever even edited this article or discussion page. . . . No, really, how did my name come into this? Confused. Do point me in the right direction, because if you're not mistaken, then someone else is posting as me. Kevin Doran 16:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Copyright violations
You cannot simply copy entire sentances from a source you must retell the sourced information in your own words. Those sections need to be completely redone.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
copyright
Perhaps whoever raised the issue about copyright could make their reasons known. The QAA report is a public document, so the only problem that I can see is with the quote from the THES, which might be a tad too long. But that is easily sorted out. By the way, I intend to add a lot more material in the next few weeks, as there is much else that is in the public domain, and is of direct relevance. Spursman 16:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am not talking about the quotes. I am talking text being lifted verbatim from the source. For example this source is clearly copyrighted. Yet the article before my blanking contatined these sentances exactly copied (and maybe more as I stopped looking)
The latest performance indicators show that Luton was above its benchmark for the number of young students it takes from low-participation neighbourhoods (where there are few people going to higher education). Its intake is 18.2 per cent against a benchmark of 14.2 per cent.
Its proportion of state school students is 99.5 per cent against a benchmark of 95.6 per cent and it admits 43.4 per cent from the lowest social classes against a benchmark of 35.7 per cent. Hand in hand with financial viability, the university became much better at attracting students.
It has also become better at retaining students. It increased its home and European recruitment of students by 59.9 per cent. "We made ourselves a more welcoming and friendly university," says Ebdon. "We really transformed our open days. We became much more customer-focused."
But the vice chancellor is not resting on his laurels or on the unsolicited praise he received from Charles Clarke when the former Education Secretary said "Everyone knows that the teaching quality at Luton is bloody brilliant". It will be a challenge to find students this autumn with a combination of the new name, the arrival of top-up fees and with applications from mature students taking a hit. Forty-three per cent of Luton's student body are mature.
- A cursory look at other sources showed other examples of copyright infringement. This is unacceptable, which is why I reported it as a copyright violation.. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to remove the copyvio template as the matter has been dealt with by deletion, and the copyvio does not apply to the whole article such that total deletion would be required. The template was also incomplete, lacking a cited URL for the copyvio. DWaterson 19:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Propaganda
Where is it all? The stuff Les Ebdon mutters in the hallways, over and over, like a malfunctioning robot; recites in his sleep; re-re-re-reinforms when you say hello to him. 'Did you know how much money we spent last year, and how great everyone says we are?! Do you know?!' Seriously, though, where's the mention of it? Things like being 4th in Media a few years ago, etc. Kevin Doran 15:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
huh?GazMan7 08:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- bleh? Kevin Doran 13:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair Play Please
To quote from above:
In the light of recent editing of this page, I would like to appeal to all contributors to follow Wiki policy, and only include information that is relevant, factually accurate, and verifiable by others.
This surely includes sections on: 1 History 2 Campuses 3 Faculties 4 Educational partner institutions 5 Alumni
or do the rules not apply to friends of Bedfordshire? Alfred Vella 23:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Alfred, i have added some references into the article. Im sure you would have been just of capable of doing so. There is no need to have an agenda to demonstarte the university is not a top uni. Clearly people know this. This is an encylopedia rather than a review site. As i understand its some years since you worked there maybe you should relax a little and work positively on Wiki. As far as i can see you have no(or very little) editing on any other articles, rather you spend all your editing time on Luton Uni. I have no connection with the uni of luton, although i do currently live in the town, so i have no agenda to promote The Uni of Beds. You ask people to play fairly but contribute little to wikipedia. GazMan7 16:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
a) I notice that you are quoting from Bedfordshire’s own web site to add credence to what you say. I though that self reference like this was not allowed?
b) I have made my intentions clear and all reading this page will know why I write here. Its not clear why you do but you seem unprepared to divulge all of the reasons.
c) The University has not, as far as I am aware, owned up to the dishonest behaviour of some of its staff. Some of these staff are still benefiting from the damage that they have done to others. Until the university does admit the wrongs of its past, I intend to do my bit to publicly and on the world stage let others know what they have done. I have had no item by item rebuttal from the university, just a note saying that I cause distress – they are causing distress to many!
d) The lives of many thousands of those who entrusted their education in the University have had their futures blighted. You are helping it to con more into the same situation. I will try and alert them. Alfred Vella 07:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Alfred, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not your personal soapbox. It is inappropriate, disruptive to the production of a quality encyclopaedic resource, potentially libellous, and contrary to Wikipedia's stated policies for you to seek to "try and alert" people to perceived "dishonest behaviour" through this medium. Please take any campaigning you wish to do to your personal website where you will not expose Wikipedia to potential libel action. If you don't have a personal website then there are many places on the internet where you can obtain free website hosting. DWaterson 16:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- DWaterson, Likewise, Wikipedia is not your soapbox where you can con potential students into joining what has been called a 'third rate university'. Unlike you I know what goes on in real universities and what went on at Bedfordshire's predecessor.
Nor is Wikipedia an advertising medium, where false pictures, like the one that you paint above are encouraged. The University is most upset when people add facts that they know to be true. They get especially annoyed and tested when reference is given as asked for! I do not believe that I have made any libellous statements. All my statements are true and the University knows that!
Why do you not ask Ebdon what happened to the Head of technical services in 2000? But I guess you would not want to know would you and he may well decline to confirm the truth or even claim ignorance!
Alfred Vella 23:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- I paint no sort of image at all and I don't care in the slightest whether students want to join this university or not. That is not the point. Furthermore, I do not ask "Ebdon" your question because a) I don't know who that is, b) I don't care, and c) it's irrelevant to the article. This article should not seek to paint any image of the university, whether positive or negative, whether you believe either to be truthful. Reporting basic facts about the university such as its name, location, size, history, facilities, etc, scarcely counts as the rabid "advertising" you seem to suggest; on the other hand, your previous contributions to this article (eg [6] have been POV in the extreme - your own particular form of self-promotion.
- I am rather perplexed and exasperated by your attitude demonstrated throughout the discussion on this talk page. I'm not sure whether you are incapable of understanding Wikipedia's policies which I and other editors have drawn your attention to on numerous occasions, or whether you are intentionally ignoring them in order to grind your axe. Either way, I think it is important that I notify an administrator as to the potentially libellous content on this page, and thereafter withdraw from further discussion on this subject as I am no longer sufficiently interested in this minor and petty dispute. DWaterson 00:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Alfred, details of campus, courses etc are not self promotion. Which strikes me as a very odd accusation.
Why do i need an agenda to want to help improve Wiki. I enjoy working on Wiki, and which is why i do it. I try to stick to the rules and not bang on about issues i believe in, which are not what Wiki is about. As everyone has told you this is an encyclopedia, you need o understand that. If you cant join in in a constructive rather than petty way maybe Wiki isnt the place for you. Why do you think Wiki editors are the university? from your page i see its 6 years since the uni perted company with you, maybe you should move on?GazMan7 11:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup Required
The article has many faults, ranging from technical (twin systems of notes - there are two "notes 1" in the text; refs come in random places with respect to punctuation etc) to POV based language instead of proper reportage. A simple and swift cleanup exercise will cure most of these. Fiddle Faddle 00:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
University ratings
(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)
There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
