Another year, and we slip even further. Last week, Facebook statuses and tweets of LSE students reflected the shock that we had, yet again, dropped in the Times Higher Education Supplement rankings. Adding salt to the wound, UCL, Imperial, Bristol, Manchester, Edinburgh, King’s, Warwick, Birmingham and even Trinity College Dublin were all far ahead of us in the league tables.
A year ago, the school launched a fiery defense against the THES, accusing the league system of systematic bias against social science specialist institutions. This argument, however, bears no merit given that the LSE has slipped even within the social science table. Even with the world stage competing with the LSE on its own terms, the School has failed to defend its turf and deliver what we as students expect of it.
The School’s utterly abysmal performance has brought disgrace upon its staff and students alike. LSE received a disappointing faculty-student ratio rating of 53 – an embarassing comparison to Oxbridge, UCL, Imperial College and other institutions, all of which scored a perfect 100. This paper believes that the score is a reflection of the School’s poor commitment to teaching and the disposal of academic resources for a student’s personal and professional development.
For far too long, the School has taken its hard-earned international reputation for granted. Sir Davies and his team evidently do not appreciate the toil of our alumni; is it hence any wonder why we continue to struggle with dwindling receipts of alumni donations, and a poor overall relationship with students and staff who have travelled through the School’s hallowed halls?
Some might argue that a number means nothing; that rankings are irrelevant. This is the argument frequently used by the School, claiming that LSE’s reputation still remains untainted in the eyes of employers, students and academics alike – a defense that shows the unwillingness of LSE’s administration to face up to the reality of its declining prestige.
Despite poor academic peer reviews, this paper will not criticise LSE’s staff. The blame, rather, lies in the hands of the technocrats who embody the saddening spirit of the Davies regime – one of corporate sovereignty and financial efficiency without an iota of regard for the welfare of students.
Sir Howard Davies must be held accountable for his scandalous performance. Students and staff must rally behind a common banner of progress; we must maintain unquestionable resolve in ensuring that we receive the treatment and support that we deserve; one that transcends the minimum standards that we have long lobbied for. This preposterous negligence is unconscionable, and the regime must not be allowed to continue to function in its current state.
Related posts:
- So long, Labour old and New
- It's a long way from real ale to real student campaigns
- The long road to being free at last
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, October 13th, 2009 at 03:02 and is filed under Comment.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
The long slide to mediocrity
by The Beaver on 13 Oct 2009 in Comment
Another year, and we slip even further. Last week, Facebook statuses and tweets of LSE students reflected the shock that we had, yet again, dropped in the Times Higher Education Supplement rankings. Adding salt to the wound, UCL, Imperial, Bristol, Manchester, Edinburgh, King’s, Warwick, Birmingham and even Trinity College Dublin were all far ahead of us in the league tables.
A year ago, the school launched a fiery defense against the THES, accusing the league system of systematic bias against social science specialist institutions. This argument, however, bears no merit given that the LSE has slipped even within the social science table. Even with the world stage competing with the LSE on its own terms, the School has failed to defend its turf and deliver what we as students expect of it.
The School’s utterly abysmal performance has brought disgrace upon its staff and students alike. LSE received a disappointing faculty-student ratio rating of 53 – an embarassing comparison to Oxbridge, UCL, Imperial College and other institutions, all of which scored a perfect 100. This paper believes that the score is a reflection of the School’s poor commitment to teaching and the disposal of academic resources for a student’s personal and professional development.
For far too long, the School has taken its hard-earned international reputation for granted. Sir Davies and his team evidently do not appreciate the toil of our alumni; is it hence any wonder why we continue to struggle with dwindling receipts of alumni donations, and a poor overall relationship with students and staff who have travelled through the School’s hallowed halls?
Some might argue that a number means nothing; that rankings are irrelevant. This is the argument frequently used by the School, claiming that LSE’s reputation still remains untainted in the eyes of employers, students and academics alike – a defense that shows the unwillingness of LSE’s administration to face up to the reality of its declining prestige.
Despite poor academic peer reviews, this paper will not criticise LSE’s staff. The blame, rather, lies in the hands of the technocrats who embody the saddening spirit of the Davies regime – one of corporate sovereignty and financial efficiency without an iota of regard for the welfare of students.
Sir Howard Davies must be held accountable for his scandalous performance. Students and staff must rally behind a common banner of progress; we must maintain unquestionable resolve in ensuring that we receive the treatment and support that we deserve; one that transcends the minimum standards that we have long lobbied for. This preposterous negligence is unconscionable, and the regime must not be allowed to continue to function in its current state.
Related posts:
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 13th, 2009 at 03:02 and is filed under Comment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.