This article from Times Higher threw me a little at first. It’s about a report from the QAA on the state of UK universities’ overseas provision and the difficulties faced in getting such courses officially recognised. But what caught my eye were the numbers involved:
Around 285,000 students are currently registered on the BSc in Applied Accounting offered via distance learning at Oxford Brookes University – almost half of the nearly 571,000 students studying for a UK degree overseas, according to the latest figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency.
285,000 students on one course, at one university? So it would seem.
The course is run in partnership with the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, with students automatically enrolled with Oxford Brookes when signing up for Acca’s professional qualification. Students must pass nine “fundamentals” papers and a self-assessed professional ethics module to receive the Acca qualification, but must produce in addition a 6,500-word research project to receive the BSc qualification.
Administering distance-learning courses can be difficult enough, and adding in an overseas dimension makes it more so, but I can’t begin to imagine what an impact those numbers would make on their admin processes, cash cow notwithstanding.
Their VC is very proud of the scheme though.
My boy’s going to do his nut when he sees this. I can’t see him not wanting to make this up himself.
A great line in here about how kids think of Facebook in the same way as we do about Linked In.
Why teens are tiring of Facebook
Facebook has become a social network that’s often too complicated, too risky, and, above all, too overrun by parents to give teens the type of digital freedom they crave.
And on we go.
The coloured pencil is mightier than- the shark? The banana? The fire engine?
True Colours by Mahmoud Hassan (Via SmashingPool)
v. spon·ta·nat·ed, spon·ta·nat·ing, spon·ta·nat·es
- To schedule in or deliberately plan a future spontaneous event, i.e. an event that happens or arises without apparent forethought or external cause or planning.
They say the writing’s been on the wall for a while, but still, this is a real shame. I’m one of those “die hards who were still using Google Reader every day (and there’s a lot of them!) will have to figure out a brand new Internet reading routine come July”. And what about all the ifttt.com recipes I’ve been building up? Might have to re-read this post about not paying for the product again.
Now, electrocuting wood isn’t something that happens every day, so if someone came up to you and asked you what that would look like, you’d probably say something like, “Er, I don’t know, perhaps like, er, slow brown lightning or something? Something fractally? Perhaps mirroring the patterns of the wood’s original branches or roots or something? And then, perhaps, when two branches or lightning paths meet, they kind of get bigger? More like dark brown, clotted varicose veins or something, like out of The Thing, maybe?”
And you know what, you’d be right.
Some wonderful sculptural work from South Korean artist Wang Zi Won – mechanical Buddhas and bodhisattvas, humans and technology fused.
It’s been suggested I have a listen to Gus O’Donnell’s Radio 4 thing, In Defence of Bureaucracy. It sounds great — “Former cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell argues that bureaucracy is an essential part of a functioning democracy” — if you like that kind of thing. Which I do.
I was hoping The Google might tell me a little more about this but the links it provided were decidedly unhelpful.
One from FT.com looked promising:
There is no shame in being a bureaucrat
Bureaucracy brings fairness in a way more discretionary systems cannot, says Gus O’Donnell. Calling someone a bureaucrat should not be a …
but the article’s behind a paywall.
And another, from The Daily Mail, was heading off down a path I didn’t care to follow
Unsung heroes? No, pen-pushers like Gormless Gus are the bane of modern life!
We should be proud of our millions of bureaucrats, said nasal Gus, or Baron O’ Donnell of Clapham, as he has become following his seamless …
Let’s leave that there, shall we? I’ll just have to make up my own mind.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, yes, yes, I do see that there is a real dilemma here. In that, while it has been government policy to regard policy as a responsibility of Ministers and administration as a responsibility of Officials, the questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the policy of administration and the administration of policy, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts, or overlaps with, responsibility for the policy of the administration of policy.
There must be a million blog posts out there about how to deal with email. Here’s another. Rory Vaden has given us 7 tips for getting your inbox to zero to add to the mix. They all sound very
familiar sensible but I especially liked number 3:
3. Extended Out of Office: When you go out of town for vacation or a work conference, turn your “out of office responder” for one day longer than you’re actually gone. I’ve found that having an out of office responder on all the time telling people how busy we are just annoys them–and doesn’t stop them from sending us emails. But turning on OOR once in a while really does have a positive effect in causing people to think before firing off an email to you knowing that you’re gone. The magic–which I discovered by accident–is in adding one extra day to it so that you legitimately have a catch-up day to get your feet back under you when you return.
I had a few days off last week and had my out-of-office on, but turned it off as soon as I got back. I might give this a go next time though, as I often find most of the first day back after any time off is spent dealing with the missed email whilst trying to fend off the new that’s coming in, often about the same topic. (Do I start from the bottom and work up, or from the top and work down?…)
Other useful tips appear in the comments, too. Someone there admits to not reading any CC-mail. I might give that a go. Often putting someone’s name in the CC box is there for the benefit of the sender only, as a way of showing to the sendee (real word?) that other eyes are potentially on them. If it’s important, tell me about it. If it’s not, then don’t.
I also tend to avoid reading l o n g emails too. If it starts to feel like someone’s just venting or ranting, that the cue to stop reading and pick up the phone. Or better still, meet up and sort out whatever the issue is that’s prompted them to write at such length.
Will we ever crack email, I wonder?