„Cuza“ obţine bani de la Guvern Casa Universitarilor intră la reabilitare
Universitatea „Alexandru Ioan Cuza“ (UAIC) a obţinut, prin Fondul de Dezvoltare şi Investiţii (FDI) gestionat de Comisia Naţională de Strategie şi Prognoză, o finanţare în valoare de 10.720.905 lei, pentru reabilitarea, refuncţionalizarea şi modernizarea Casei Universitarilor, imobil care este şi monument istoric.
Durata de implementare a proiectului este de 24 de luni. „Casa Universitarilor a reintrat în posesia Universităţii «Alexandru Ioan Cuza» din Iaşi la data de 16 aprilie 2015, iar în aprilie 2016 UAIC a început demersurile pentru valorificarea imobilului, prin obţinerea Certificatul de Urbanism nr. 988 pentru realizarea obiectivului de investiţii «Reabilitare, refuncţionalizare şi modernizare».
Ulterior, în septembrie 2017, s-a semnat contractul de servicii proiectare şi asistenţă tehnică, onorat din venituri proprii ale universităţii“, au precizat reprezentanţii universităţii. În septembrie 2018, UAIC a obţinut autorizaţia de construire, iar acum sunt licitate deja lucrările de construcţii, aflându-se în etapa de evaluare a propunerilor financiare depuse de ofertanţi. „Casa Universitarilor din Iaşi (Casa Canta) este o clădire de patrimoniu construită în jurul anului 1800 pentru Iordache Cantacuzino. Clădirea a fost refăcută de fiul acestuia, logofătul Nicolae Canta, iar din anul 1947 intră în administrarea universităţii, având destinaţia de cantină – restaurant pentru profesori“, au mai precizat aceştia.
Publicație : Ziarul de Iași și Bună Ziua Iași
Editura UAIC, premiata la Targul de Carti si Arte Frumoase „Arca lui Gutenberg”
Sambata, 5 octombrie 2019, in cadrul ceremoniei de decernare a diplomelor Targului de Carti si Arte Frumoase „Arca lui Gutenberg”, Editura Universitatii „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iasi a primit Diploma „Dimitrie Cantemir” pentru cartea universitara si academica. De asemenea, prezentarea bogatei productii editoriale la standul Editurii UAIC a fost remarcata prin acordarea Diplomei „Arca lui Gutenberg” pentru participarea de inalta tinuta editoriala la acest targ de carte. Juriul a fost format din Ioan Holban (presedinte), Valeriu Stancu, Antonio Patras, Nicu Gavriluta, Cassian Maria Spiridon, Mihai-Cezar Zaharia si Petru Radu.
In cadrul celei de-a V-a editii a Targului de Carti si Arte Frumoase „Arca lui Gutenberg”, eveniment organizat de Sedcom Libris, in perioada 2 – 6 octombrie 2019, la Palas Mall Iasi, Editura Universitatii a fost prezenta la stand cu o varietate de titluri aparute recent. Totodata, au fost organizate intalniri cu autorii cartilor, prin lansarea a cinci dintre volumele aparute recent in doua dintre colectiile de referinta ale Editurii UAIC, Sophia si Cicero. Printre invitatii speciali ai Editurii s-au numarat : prof.univ.dr. Mihaela Paraschiv, prof.univ.dr. Valerius M. Ciuca, prof.univ.dr. Eugen Munteanu, prof.univ.dr.Constantin Salavastru, prof.univ.dr. George Bondor, prof.univ.dr. Petru Bejan, CS I Andi Mihalache si CS III Ionut Barliba.
Publicație : Bună Ziua Iași
No-deal Brexit would leave science dead for years, say Nobel prizewinners
Top scientists accuse Boris Johnson of sacrificing the UK’s research reputation – and billions of pounds in EU grants
Two Nobel laureates and other top scientists are accusing Boris Johnson of destroying Britain’s global reputation by behaving “like a clown” and pursuing a no-deal Brexit that would leave UK science “dead” for years.
The government has assured anxious academics it still has a clear ambition to join the European commission’s new €100bn (£89bn) research funding programme, Horizon Europe, after Brexit. But Robert-Jan Smits, the commission’s former director-general of research, says the UK has “zero chance” of negotiating associate membership after a no-deal divorce.
Top scientists on this side of the Channel warn that billions in funding are at stake, as well as invaluable European research collaborations that cannot be replicated overnight elsewhere.
Sir Paul Nurse, the Nobel prize-winning geneticist and director of the London-based Crick Institute, the biggest biomedical research facility in Europe, says: “Colleagues abroad think the UK has lost its senses. The prime minister behaves like a clown and the world has noted that. Our reputation has plummeted.”
Sir Andre Geim, who won a Nobel prize in 2010 for his work on graphene and is based at Manchester University, is equally damning: “In science, a no-deal Brexit would be like a severe drought for an orchard. You can’t expect to have a harvest after watering it again next year. All the trees are already dead.”
Senior academics say not only future funding is up in the air. They are losing confidence in the government’s pledge, in 2016, to underwrite successful grant applications, submitted before Brexit, to the commission’s current science funding scheme Horizon 2020. Now Universities UK, which represents Britain’s vice-chancellors, is complaining that the cabinet is stalling on the publication of details for universities on how the guarantee would work in practice.
Smits, the commission’s research chief between 2010-2018, says that although it would be legally possible for the UK to join the Horizon Europe programme even after no deal, it would require tough negotiation and could only happen if there was residual goodwill on both sides.
“It all depends on the nature of these last negotiations. If there is a really rough climate and Boris Johnson leaves slamming the door and saying ‘Up yours!’ the chances of an association on science are not close to zero, they are zero,” he says. “At this stage it’s all about trust and, to be frank, some of Boris Johnson’s attitudes and behaviour might not be seen in Brussels as a good guarantee for a decent final deal and for some goodwill remaining intact.”
Nurse, one of the commission’s chief scientific advisers, agrees. “I was in Brussels last week and if we crash out as Boris says, I don’t think we stand any chance of joining Horizon Europe.”
He is similarly pessimistic about the short term. “The government has said it will honour any existing commitments under Horizon 2020, but as they have been promising money everywhere I think we have to take that with a pinch of salt. I think they are flying by the seat of their pants.”
If Britain leaves without a deal on 31 October and all funding is frozen, the Crick institute will have nearly £30m outstanding and many more applications left in limbo.
But for Nurse this is about far more than just the cash to carry out essential scientific discovery work. “Europe is probably the biggest science bloc in the world and it is the most effective. The UK is part of collaborations that have been going on for decades, and if we crash out they will be immediately lost.
“Science is a highly international, outward-looking activity. Brexit is driven by the opposite. This is not the way to attract the best brains in the world. We will lose people but it will also become much harder to recruit,” he says.
Prof Geim, meanwhile, says that far from being melodramatic, scientists are underestimating the “dire consequences” of a no-deal Brexit. He says Smits and Nurse are “absolutely right” that the government won’t be able to talk its way into Horizon Europe if Britain crashes out. “Imagine a divorce that ends up in animosity. You don’t expect an invitation from your partner to join a business venture any time soon. That’s the same for no-deal Brexit.”
Geim says some colleagues in the UK have left, and others will leave if there is no deal. He wants to stay – but only if he can keep contributing to society with his research. “If we are deprived of research funding we cannot do what we are trained to do. We become like footballers without a stadium or a ball.”
Gero Miesenböck, an Austrian who is Waynflete professor of physiology at Oxford University, also says many scientists are voting with their feet. “Basic research is the foundation of everything. And the UK is extremely good at it, which is why I am here. But I worry that no one is paying attention to the damage about to be done,” he says.
Prof Imre Berger, chair in biochemistry at Bristol University, who has led numerous European-funded collaborations, and is from Germany, argues that if Britain crashes out, science will be way down negotiators’ list of priorities.
“If this happens the UK will spend years in the scientific wilderness. Science has survived world wars so it will recover eventually, but when we have all this now, what is the point of throwing it away?”
Sir Alan Fersht, a pioneer of protein engineering and one of the most lauded chemists at Cambridge, says: “The EU has been the best thing for British science for decades. The European research council has provided support that didn’t exist, like starter grants for young scientists and advanced grants for senior scientists to do novel work. It has been transformative.”
Vivienne Stern, director of Universities UK International, echoes the alarm. “If we leave without a deal I don’t see any basis for us negotiating associated status on Horizon Europe.” She is worried that the government seems to have no plan B. “It has said nothing on making alternative funding available beyond Horizon 2020. There is no publication date for their review of options, let alone work to design such a scheme – and no funding commitment.”
Meanwhile, universities are anxious that if the tap is suddenly turned off on existing Horizon 2020 grants there is no clarity about how they secure substitute funding to pay research salaries.
“We are really quite frustrated that we are still waiting for details of how the underwrite will work. The Cabinet Office needs to get on with it,” Stern says.
However, asked to comment, a spokesperson for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said the government had provided a funding guarantee that would cover existing successful Horizon 2020 bids.
Publicație : The Guardian
Two-thirds of UK universities bring in sexual consent training – report
Universities UK welcomes findings but says more work needed to prevent racial harassment
Universities in the UK have made progress in dealing with sexual harassment on campus, with nearly two-thirds introducing consent training for students, according to a survey of almost 100 institutions.
The research found that universities including Edinburgh, Kent, Durham, Oxford and Soas, University of London were conducting classes to train students in how to seek and recognise sexual consent. At some universities, the courses were mandatory in freshers’ week.
However, while many universities have increased training for staff and introduced preventative campaigns to address sexual harassment and gender-based violence, the report found far less had been done to deal with racial harassment.
The universities minister, Chris Skidmore, expressed concern that too few senior leaders in universities were taking a prominent role in trying to combat harassment, violence and hate crime, instead leaving this to more junior colleagues.
Skidmore said: “I am struck by the report’s finding that not all senior leaders are taking strong ownership of the issue, which is simply not good enough. The impact of these offences can be devastating on victims and, while this report shows the progress which has been made, it also highlights the sad truth that there is much further to go to combat the culture of harassment, support those affected and take serious action where needed.”
Universities UK (UUK), the umbrella group representing 136 institutions that conducted the survey, welcomed progress made by its members on tackling sexual harassment, but acknowledged “less priority” had been afforded to tackling racial harassment and other forms of hate crime.
“Most institutional practice continues to be focused on tackling student-to-student sexual harassment and misconduct, and gender-based violence,” the report states.
“Evidence that other forms of harassment (including hate incidents) are being addressed is emerging, although this remains relatively underdeveloped.
“Addressing hate crime is likely to require further support, time and resources to achieve the same level of prominence as has been achieved with sexual misconduct.”
The UUK survey found 81% of institutions had updated their discipline procedures to address harassment and 53% had introduced or made additions to their student codes of conduct.
Just over 80% said they had improved support for students who reported harassment and 78% said they had provided clear information on how to report an incident. More than a third have recruited staff to address harassment and hate crime.
Julia Buckingham, the UUK president and vice-chancellor of Brunel University London, said the sector was committed to ensuring inclusive environments for students of all genders, backgrounds and ethnicities.
She said: “While it is understandable that there has been a particular focus on addressing gender-based violence, it is time for us to step up and make sure the same priority status and resourcing is given to addressing all forms of harassment and hate.”
The survey was conducted to review progress two years after UUK launched its Changing the Culture report, which set out a new framework to support the sector to deliver improvements in tackling all forms of harassment, with a specific focus on sexual misconduct.
The latest survey acknowledges there are problems with resourcing and funding for improvements in universities, with 45% of institutions saying this is a barrier to progress.
It also calls for greater accountability for tackling harassment and hate crime at senior management and executive level. Less than half of universities said their senior leaders were involved.
Dr Tiffany Page, a co-founder of the 1752 Group, which campaigns to end sexual misconduct in higher education, said: “While the survey suggests university progress in the last two years, the real test is the experience of students accessing the reporting and disciplinary procedures, and support mechanisms, and how universities respond to complaints.
She said: “Data is still missing on the treatment of reporting students by universities and whether their reports of discrimination and violence are taken seriously and acted on effectively. Based on our research and others in the sector, this is still not happening.”
Prof Kalwant Bhopal, the deputy director of the centre for research in race and education at Birmingham University, said: “This report shows positive progress in tackling harassment and hate crime in universities. However, it’s very disappointing to learn that progress on tackling racial discrimination has been much slower.
“I’m not surprised by this, given this reflects other areas of higher education – particularly inclusive policy making where race is not considered a priority compared to gender. If universities are serious about issues of social justice, they must consider the impact racism has on both students and staff – and how this must be addressed.”
Publicație : The Guardian și The Times
Student disadvantage does not end with graduation
Universities should offer a safety net for recent graduates forced into menial work by financial circumstances, says Roy Celaire
“You’re not working class. You’re at Oxford, and you went to the LSE.”
This is what someone at my college recently told me, towards the end of my master’s degree in social anthropology at the University of Oxford – which I undertook after doing a master’s in gender studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Yet here I am a few months on, unemployed, penniless and facing possible eviction from my home.
For many, graduating from elite institutions allows them access to the jobs they had always dreamed of. But it is an awful lot easier to realise such dreams if you have a family to support you between the last day of term and your first day at the office. My interlocutor would be in disbelief if they knew that, living entirely independently, I have just had to apply for universal credit. They would be even more staggered to learn that I won’t be able to pay my monthly rent until I receive my first payment in six weeks. Nor am I sure how I will be able to feed myself and pay my bills until then – let alone maintain an internet connection to look for jobs and pay for travel to interviews.
Channel 4 journalist Jon Snow is reported to have told students at Oxford that, whatever their backgrounds, they are now part of the elite. But I do not in any way consider myself to be part of the elite. I am still poor and working class. Having gone to Oxford has not changed my financial or class situation one iota – at least, not yet.
I am not complaining about my unemployment. I’ve had a few rejections so far, but I will just keep going. Yet I feel that it is important to stress to lazy commentators that winning the golden ticket to a top university does not instantly place you in the great glass elevator to the stratosphere.
I had to crowdfund my way through Oxford; I thought the £30,000 I raised would be just enough to last me for the year, but it ran out sooner. So I was already living on thin air even before my final exams, and I was so busy studying for them that I didn’t have time to line up a job.
For the vast majority of students, if they have not already arranged their first step on the career ladder before finishing university, they go back to a rent-free, full-board family home, with wi-fi and laundry service. They have the time to search for a job that truly matches their credentials and aspirations, and they have the means to take the necessary steps to secure it, whether that be doing an unpaid internship or travelling long distances with overnight stays for interviews.
The situation is very different for those like me who are estranged from our families, or are single parents or care leavers. Our bills and rent need to be paid as soon as we finish university. We don’t have the luxury of holding out for the most suitable job however long it takes to be advertised and however drawn out its recruitment process. Our priority – like that of so many other people in this country – has to be to stave off the possibility of homelessness.
So here I am, taking a break from applying for the kind of minimum-wage jobs whose weekly pay schedules offer me the chance to pay my rent before the state benefits arrive. Quite apart from the frustration that this induces in me, the knock-on effect is that I could also be taking away jobs from those who are younger than me and do not have the qualifications to aim any higher. So they are frustrated too.
The same situation occurred after I finished my degree at the LSE, and I ended up working for a supermarket. It is dreary shift work, but you are often too tired to apply for anything better when you get home at midnight. This creates a situation in which your degree gradually loses its currency because employers often favour recent graduates. It is a vicious cycle that disproportionately affects disadvantaged students.
Universities are very concerned about their graduate employment statistics, given their central role in the teaching excellence framework and their own marketing. They also claim to be committed to widening participation, promoting social justice and transforming lives. In all these regards, it behoves them to somehow provide a safety net for those of their students most in need after they finish their degrees. Couldn’t at least a small proportion of the £800 million a year spent by UK universities on widening participation be redirected for this purpose?
Disadvantaged students like me aren’t just less likely to get the grades and to apply to university in the first place. We aren’t just less likely to succeed once we are there, and more likely to drop out. We are also less likely to be able to put our degrees to the best use. Why are universities that are so concerned about the first two of these problems so unconcerned about the third?
Poverty and precariousness do not end with a graduation ceremony. There is a further chasm to cross. And at the moment I can’t see anything that looks like a bridge.
Publicație : The Times
Flipping great? The case for and against flipping the classroom
A recent study suggested the approach had no impact on student achievement, but many academics believe the move away from lectures can improve learning – if it is done well
The concept of the flipped classroom has been gaining traction as a pedagogical approach for three decades, with its adoption rapidly increasing in recent years: more than half of US universities now employ the model.
However, academics remain at odds over whether the technique – in which students digest new educational content outside the classroom and then use contact time to discuss, apply and deepen their knowledge – is an improvement on the “out-of-date” traditional lecture, or whether the reason the lecture format has stuck around so long is because it is effective.
As the popularity of the flipped classroom has grown, the critics of the lecture have grown more vocal. Carl Wieman, a Nobel prizewinning physicist at Stanford University, has described the chalk-and-talk approach as being akin to “bloodletting in the era of evidence-based medicine”. According to Professor Wieman, the evidence is clear that “active learning instruction consistently achieves better student outcomes than lectures” across a wide range of disciplines.
Nevertheless, the lecture remains difficult to dislodge as academics’ instructional method of choice, and doubts remain about the effectiveness of the flipped classroom: a survey of 290 European universities last year found that it was the least popular of five teaching innovations considered. Only 15 per cent considered the model to be “fully useful”, while 39 per cent said that it was useful to some extent.
Defenders of the lecture, such as James Conroy, the University of Glasgow’s vice-principal for internationalisation, highlight that the “much maligned” lecture actually “requires concentration, analysis and judgement”, which are important skills for students to learn.
A scholarly grenade was tossed into the debate this summer with the publication of a paper that found that switching to the flipped classroom failed to improve student performance. Researchers analysed results of 1,328 students at the United States Military Academy using data from in-class quizzes and end-of-year exams and found that the group taught via the flipped classroom method did no better than those who had lectures. The study also showed that the model might exacerbate achievement gaps between different groups of learners.
The paper, published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been criticised on several grounds: for example, the profile of students and the academic regime in a military academy is significantly different from those of a typical university, and the study focused on students from a narrow range of disciplines, specifically economics and mathematics. Furthermore, all the lecturers taking part in the study were new to the flipped classroom method, and the comparatively simplistic preparatory material – video recordings of lectures, as opposed to, for example, independent research – may have been a factor in students’ results.
So where does the scholarly consensus now lie on the value of the flipped classroom approach? And, if it is to be implemented, how can it be done most effectively? The MIT paper is by no means the only research project to have shed light on the strengths and drawbacks of the approach. Some studies have come to similar conclusions: a 2013 study at Brigham Young University found “no significant difference” between the achievement and perceived learning gain of students taught by flipped or traditional teaching methods. A 2012 study of students at Middle Tennessee State University found that those in a flipped classroom “were less satisfied with how the classroom structure oriented them to the learning tasks in the course”.
In contrast, a 2019 literature review, conducted by academics at Utrecht University, studied 114 papers and found that the flipped classroom had “a small positive effect on learning outcomes” overall. A 2018 review of 28 papers published in BMC Medical Education that focused on the experience of students in health professions concluded that there was an overall “significant effect” in favour of flipped classrooms. In addition, the paper found that the majority of respondents said they preferred flipped to traditional classrooms.
Other studies have drawn out nuance in the debate. A 2018 literature review by academics at the University of Florida analysed 55 studies and found a “statistically significant effect” in favour of the flipped classroom, but concluded that disciplinary differences were important to take into consideration – engineering was particularly well suited to flipping, they said. The authors added that “other forms of blended learning appear to have a stronger effect on student learning outcomes”.
A broader problem is that many of the studies focusing on the flipped classroom have been observational, as opposed to experimental, and have often involved relatively small sample sizes.
Paul Wyatt, a professorial teaching fellow in the University of Bristol’s School of Chemistry, said that it “can be tricky” to place a numerical value on the effect of the flipped classroom. However, he has implemented a model for his undergraduate courses in which half the lectures are flipped and half are not, and he reports that students were “very engaged” with the format and that the majority of the feedback had been positive. Many students said it helped them to truly learn the material rather than just passively take in information, he said.
Professor Wyatt said he enjoyed teaching in this way. “I’m interacting with [students] when I teach them; it’s much more fun. It is difficult for students to enjoy themselves when you are not enjoying it. It is a virtuous circle,” he said.
Simone Buitendijk, vice-provost for education at Imperial College London, agreed that this was an overlooked but important element in the debate. “It’s OK to make teaching fun,” she said.
Professor Buitendijk said that although she did not believe that the lecture should be consigned to history, the flipped classroom was a useful tool to make learning more interactive. “At Imperial, we are still part of a relatively small group of pioneers, but I’m convinced it will spread. We won’t do lecturing as our prime way to teach, but it’s a work in a progress.”
She added that it would require a change in the wider ecosystem to accelerate the uptake of the flipped classroom because assessment would need to evolve to reflect the more interactive nature of learning. Most research-intensive universities still have not put enough time, effort or money into overhauling their teaching, she argued, and “if you are a really busy person, you will teach the way you’ve always done it. So it needs to be a strategic effort.”
Effort is a key issue, because academics agree that adopting flipped learning is a fairly significant undertaking that must be underpinned by strong pedagogy.
“If you simply videotape a boring lecture, that’s not going to work; that’s worse than the boring lecture in person,” Professor Buitendijk said. “You really need to think about what you put online, [and] how students relate with the video material.”
Professor Wieman strongly agreed. He told Times Higher Education that the flipped classroom was a format that made it easier to embark on active learning, but there was “nothing in the definition of a flipped classroom that says [teachers] are putting in the right kinds of activity”.
“Sitting there watching a lecture on a monitor is no more effective than [watching a lecture] in person. What really matters is what happens in the classroom,” Professor Wieman said. If the teacher designs their flipped classroom teaching with evidence-based active learning techniques, it will work; if not, it won’t, he said. Approaches that are advocated by researchers include problem-solving, experiential learning and peer assessment – not just group discussions.
The 2018 Florida literature review backed this up: the variation in the results of different research papers on flipped learning was likely attributable to the “considerable variability in the design and implementation of flipped classrooms”, it said.
Professor Wyatt said he believed that the positive feedback that his flipped teaching received had a lot to do with the fact that he made lecture recordings specifically for the lessons, rather than using recordings of old lectures, which he found were not liked by students. He also emphasised the importance of using technology effectively – in his case, polling software.
“I deliberately only flip half the course to anchor it in something familiar,” Professor Wyatt added. The flipped lessons should not make extra work for the students – they are supposed to have personal study time, and it’s just flipping that, he explained. However, students who have succeeded throughout their education by cramming might feel that they have to make a lot more effort, and they will need convincing, Professor Wyatt said.
He also cautioned against a top-down approach to implementing the flipped classroom across a university. “The thing with all innovative teaching is that it doesn’t work if teachers are told, ‘You have to do this,’” Professor Wyatt said. “It has to come from the lecturer thinking, ‘This might work for me, and I’d like to try that.’”
Publicație : The Times
Academics ‘lose a week a year’ to formatting journal papers
First analysis of economic cost of manuscript formatting highlights need for more flexibility from publishers, say authors
Most academics will be familiar with the laborious task of formatting their research articles to meet the requirements of peer-reviewed journals – multiple times over in the case of papers that are rejected by one periodical before finding a home elsewhere.
Now a study has attempted for the first time to quantify the cost of this painstaking activity, and it doesn’t appear to come cheap, either in terms of time or money.
Drawing on responses to an online poll from 458 researchers in 41 countries, a paper published in Plos One claims that scientists lose an average of 52 hours a year to formatting manuscripts – the equivalent of about one working week – either before submission to peer-reviewed titles or after they have been accepted
That figure is based on results suggesting that respondents formatted an average of four papers a year – each of which took an estimated 14 hours to process, having typically been submitted to two publications before being accepted. Tasks involved in formatting included altering figures, tables, supplementary files and references to meet journals’ requirements.
With the median annual income of respondents falling between $61,000 and $80,999 (£49,460 and £65,675), the wage costs for each manuscript were estimated at $477 – or $1,908 per researcher each year, according to the paper.
It recommends the “elimination of strict [scientific] formatting guidelines, at least prior to [a paper’s] acceptance” to “alleviate [an] unnecessary burden on scientists”.
Four out of five scientific papers are rejected at least once before publication, according to recent research.
The authors of the latest paper – who are based at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute and the University of Prince Edward Island, both in Canada – say that repeatedly formatting papers is often regarded as one of the most frustrating and time-consuming tasks in academia.
Allana LeBlanc, the study’s lead author, told Times Higher Education that the investigation was inspired by a “particularly onerous systematic review” of a previous paper that led to changes to more than 200 references.
“We joked often about how frustrating formatting references, tables, font size and headings was, and how incredible it was that this duty fell to the authors,” she said.
Dr LeBlanc acknowledged that the self-reporting nature of the poll – promoted on Twitter and completed mainly by those in health sciences – meant that the $1,908 annual cost figure could not be regarded as definitive.
However, the “problem is clear”, she added. ”Formatting to random standards set by various journals has no impact on the scientific value of the work; it just costs scientists both time and money,” she said. “Given the scarcity of grant funds in academia, there needs to be a change in role whereby the publishers take on some of this burden themselves.”
Publicație : The Times
Renewed academic freedom curbs ‘hamper India’s eminence hopes’
‘Under these circumstances, high world rankings are just not going to happen,’ professor warns
India has been warned that it will struggle to achieve its higher education development goals if it does not take significant steps to guarantee academic freedom.
The country has selected 20 universities to receive Rs10 billion (£110 million) each over the next five years under its “institutes of eminence” programme, with the goal of making them “world-class teaching and research institutions”. In the same period, India aims to quadruple the number of international students in the country to 200,000.
However, academics across the country remain concerned about continuing assaults on freedom of expression – widely regarded as a prerequisite for the creation of a successful university sector that is attractive to foreign academics and students.
Concern is highest over the status of universities in the disputed Kashmir region, which has been the subject of a communications blackout since August. Professors from six universities warned in The Hindu last month that academics and students in the region had no access to the internet or mobile phone networks and had only limited access to landlines.
“Teaching and activities there have been dealt a devastating blow,” the professors wrote.
Nandini Sundar, professor of sociology at the University of Delhi, told Times Higher Education that the problems went beyond Kashmir’s borders. “The rest of India is also being silenced about Kashmir. There’s such a clampdown on universities that nobody can discuss anything about Kashmir, except to praise the government,” she said.
Professor Sundar saw a broader deterioration of liberties across India. “Academic freedom has been under threat for a while, from institutional control and lack of support. But the thought control and restrictions have got much worse since 2014” – the year the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power.
In July, officials at the University of Delhi said curricula should contain no “controversial” or “provocative” content “which may hurt the sentiments of any organisation and community”. That edict led to the departments of sociology, political science, history and English “revisiting” their syllabuses.
Professor Sundar’s work was removed from reading lists by the political science department because it makes references to India’s agrarian crisis and Maoists, according to local reports. But she took issue with the term “controversial”. “It’s only controversial to the BJP,” Professor Sundar said.
Other recent cases have also given cause for concern. Last month, the renowned historian Romila Thapar said she would refuse to comply with a request from Jawaharlal Nehru University that she resubmit her CV in order to retain her post as professor emerita.
While JNU said the move was a routine procedure, Professor Thapar has long been critical of the authorities. In a May column in The New York Times, she said the Modi government was writing “make-believe versions of the past”.
N Sai Balaji, president of JNU’s students’ union, told India Today that asking for Professor Thapar’s CV was “part of larger agenda of this government that wants destroy research and learning”.
In August, six students at the University of Hyderabad were detained briefly by police for organising a screening of the 1992 documentary In the Name of God, which some BJP supporters regard as anti-Hindu.
“There is no free discussion and instead, demoralisation,” Professor Sundar concluded. “Under these circumstances, high world rankings are just not going to happen.”
Publicație : The Times
Seven in 10 students disclosing mental health condition is female
Number of undergraduates disclosing mental health condition has more than doubled in four years, Advance HE data show
The true number of students suffering a mental health problem is still likely being underestimated even though the number of UK undergraduates disclosing an issue has doubled in four years, it has been suggested.
Data published in the latest Advance HE statistical report on equality in higher education show that the rate at which students are admitting to a mental health issue is continuing to rise.
In 2017-18, 59,010 students on a bachelor’s course said they had a mental health condition, up from just 23,460 in 2013-14, according to figures provided by the Higher Education Statistics Agency.
The latest report says that between 2015-16 and 2017-18, the proportion of all students with a disability who said they had a mental health condition increased by 6.4 percentage points to 23.9 per cent. For undergraduates, that share was a quarter.
There is also a striking gender split: 72 per cent of students disclosing a mental health condition are female, and that gap has widened since 2013-14, when 68 per cent were female.
Nicola Byrom, a lecturer in psychology at King’s College London who is leading a new national research network on student mental health, and is also the founder of the charity Student Minds, said that the rising numbers admitting a problem was a “good thing” and “indicative of the students who need support asking for this”.
But she added that the data still showed that less than 4 per cent of all students were disclosing a mental health problem.
This was despite the latest nationwide survey on mental illness in England – the 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey – suggesting that about one in four women aged 16 to 24 and one in 10 men in the same age group “have experienced symptoms of a common mental health disorder in the last week”.
“We would expect that considerably fewer people have a long-term mental health condition than the numbers identifying symptoms in the last week,” Dr Byrom said. “However, the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey data suggest we should not be surprised if the numbers of students disclosing mental health conditions was much higher than it is currently.”
She added that it was “vital” that students with mental health problems “feel confident disclosing these to the university as this ensures that the best support is put in place to help students study”.
Publicație : The Times
A l’université de Tours, retour vers le futur
Le tour de France des campus, étape 2. Pour les 500 ans de la Renaissance en Val-de-Loire, l’Ecole supérieure en intelligence des patrimoines réinvente le métier d’historien grâce au numérique. Une forme de Renaissance augmentée qui ne fait pas l’unanimité dans la cité qui célèbre Léonard de Vinci.
Quand Assassin’s Creed rencontre « Des racines et des ailes ». Tel est le pari de Sur les pas de Léonard, cet étonnant Webdocumentaire interactif, un voyage dans le temps en mode numérique. Ses treize épisodes et son jeu vidéo en réalité virtuelle nous emmènent dans un périple initiatique « inspiré de la “peregrinatio” scientifique typique de la Renaissance », en France, en Italie, en Suisse, dans le sillage de Léonard de Vinci.
Vedette du site Vivadavinci2019.fr, il a été créé cette année pour les 500 ans de la Renaissance en Val-de-Loire par la toute nouvelle Ecole supérieure en intelligence des patrimoines (ESI-Pat) de l’université de Tours. L’enjeu par-delà le jeu : « Dépasser les clichés habituellement véhiculés sur Léonard de Vinci en prenant appui sur les dernières données de la recherche sur la Renaissance et en exploitant le potentiel des nouvelles technologies. »
« Sur les pas de Léonard »
C’est bien « sur les pas de Léonard » que s’est engagé le fondateur de cette école, Benoist Pierre, le doyen du Centre d’études supérieures de la Renaissance (CESR), maison mère de l’ESI-Pat. Intelligence des patrimoines… Ce pluriel dit une ambition : la réinvention du métier d’historien.
Enseignant-chercheur en histoire et archéologie, diplômé de Sciences Po et de l’université européenne de Florence, Benoist Pierre s’inscrit dans les pas d’un autre grand ancien devenu à Tours (presque) aussi mythique que l’illustre Italien : Gaston Berger, le fondateur du CESR en 1956. Lui-même père d’une autre légende du monde des arts, Maurice Béjart, ce grand résistant et philosophe, maître de la prospective, fut le premier à (re) faire de Tours la capitale de la France renaissante – treize ans avant la création de l’université François-Rabelais (renommée université de Tours en 2017).
Plus qu’une « Renaissance », une « Révolution »
Vinci par-ci, Vinci par-là… La ville s’est parée cette année de tous ses atours de porte d’entrée du Val-de-Loire – le plus vaste espace d’Europe inscrit au Patrimoine mondial de l’Unesco. L’université ne fait pas exception, dont le campus de Blois accueille, du 9 au 13 octobre, les Rendez-vous de l’histoire, consacrés, pour leur 22e édition, à… l’Italie, naturalmente.
L’ESI-Pat est la dernière « machine », au sens léonardien, conçue dans la « ville campus », comme l’appelle le président de l’université, le musicologue belge Philippe Vendrix. « Une graduate school à la française », dit Benoist Pierre, installée sous les voûtes de l’Hôtel Camors (XVe siècle), au cœur de la vieille ville. « Une formation professionnalisante à et par la recherche », résume le maître des lieux, dont le programme entend mener à bien « la médiation numérique de la culture et des patrimoines » par une « maîtrise de la donnée », et un pas vers l’historien « augmenté » par l’intelligence artificielle… Plus qu’une « Renaissance », une « Révolution ».
Publicație : Le Monde
A Tours, la Villa Rabelais joue la renaissance de la gastronomie
La toute nouvelle Ecole supérieure en intelligence des patrimoines (ESI-Pat) a introduit d’emblée dans son menu un master « cultures et patrimoines de l’alimentation ».
« De vous à moi, la cuisine ne fait pas partie de la culture… La culture, c’est ce qui élève l’âme, c’est l’opéra et les cathédrales ! » Francis Chevrier se souvient encore de cette saillie d’un conseiller de Nicolas Sarkozy à l’Elysée, pourtant chargé par ce dernier d’instruire le dossier de candidature de la gastronomie française au Patrimoine culturel immatériel à l’Unesco, en 2010 – une première mondiale. « Etudier ces sujets à l’université ne faisait pas “sérieux”, dit Francis Chevrier. C’est une gymnastique intellectuelle moins évidente ici qu’au Japon ou en Chine. »
Alsacien d’origine et tourangeau d’adoption, après un passage par Sciences Po, Oxford et Beaubourg, Francis Chevrier fut déjà à l’origine, en 1998, des « Rendez-vous de l’histoire » de Blois (dont il est toujours le directeur et dont Le Monde est l’un des partenaires), à la demande du maire d’alors, Jack Lang. Devenu ministre de l’éducation et de la recherche du gouvernement Jospin, en 2002, ce dernier soutint le projet d’ériger les food studies au rang d’études culturelles en France.
« L’étude de l’alimentation par les sciences humaines et sociales »
Une nouvelle étape est franchie aujourd’hui : la toute nouvelle Ecole supérieure en intelligence des patrimoines (ESI-Pat) a introduit d’emblée dans son menu un master « cultures et patrimoines de l’alimentation ». « L’université a choisi de faire de l’étude de l’alimentation par les sciences humaines et sociales l’un des axes forts de sa politique de recherche et de son identité scientifique », expose son président, Philippe Vendrix.
La Villa Rabelais, site historique de l’ancienne faculté de droit, abrite cette nouvelle discipline. C’est ici que fut installée, en 2017, la Cité internationale de la gastronomie, première du genre en France – Lyon inaugurera la sienne fin octobre. Et que fut créé, en 2002, l’Institut européen d’histoire et des cultures de l’alimentation (Iehca), un réseau de 400 chercheurs européens en matière alimentaire.
« Nourrir la recherche appliquée »
En novembre, la Villa Rabelais va encore s’enrichir d’une Ecole du repas gastronomique, avec des cuisines dernier cri. « Pas pour former des cuisiniers, ce que font très bien les lycées hôteliers, mais pour nourrir la recherche appliquée », précise M. Chevrier. Des chefs connus et reconnus, étoilés ou pas, viendront ici assurer des master class, d’autres en devenir seront accueillis en résidence, comme le sont les artistes à la Villa Médicis, à Rome.
Publicație : Le Monde
Medicina: accolto il ricorso, ammessi 250 studenti
La decisione del Consiglio di Stato dopo che gli aspiranti dottori erano stati esclusi dopo il test dell’anno scorso
Il Consiglio di Stato ha accolto il ricorso di 250 studenti ammettendoli alla Facoltà di Medicina e Chirurgia dopo che erano stati esclusi in seguito al test d’ingresso sostenuto lo scorso anno. ” Tale aumento non soltanto è indice del sottodimensionamento dei posti sin qui disponibili nell’offerta formativa, ma sembra anche più aderente ai prevedibili fabbisogni sanitari futuri”, scrivono i giudici nelle motivazioni. Gli avvocati del network legale di Consulcesi che hanno rappresentato i ricorrenti sottolineano che la sentenza „si fonda anche sul fatto che per l’anno accademico 2019/2020 il ministero ha aumentato di 1.600 i posti disponibili”.
Questa sentenza, che arriva esattamente alla vigilia degli scorrimenti delle graduatorie, mette automaticamente in discussione anche il numero dei posti stabilito per l’anno accademico 2019/2020″, commenta Massimo Tortorella, presidente di Consulcesi. E conclude: „Il diritto allo studio non può essere limitato.
La selezione dei più capaci e meritevoli deve essere fatta durante il corso di studi e non affidata alla cabala di quiz commissionati a una società privata. Per il momento, in attesa che questo avvenga, l’unico modo per gli studenti di esercitare il loro diritto è quello di andare davanti agli organi della giustizia amministrativa”.
Publicație : La Repubblica