That bus just OVERtook me

Well, we have had problems with bendy buses, but here is an idea which looks even more scary for the average cyclist....

Yup, the idea is that it rides over two lanes of traffic.  But I have a number of questions:

• How do you stop cyclists getting stuck in the rails?
• What happens if there is a lorry in the bus lane?
• What happens to cars changing lane?
• How does it go round corners?
• What happens to the cars at the junctions.

Still, it looks like a nice idea.  When I was young I envisaged a car with legs so it could overtake a traffic jam.  could come to a town near china one day?

http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/china-to-build-ginormous-buses-that-cars-can-drive-under-video/

Can students evaluate lecturers effectively?

An interesting summary of an article (which unfortunately is not (yet?) freely available in an IR on student assessment of their lecturers. Suggesting that they prefer lecturers who "teach to the test" rather than foster deep learning. They study made possible because the USAF teach the same course to different groups of students, and marking is done by question not by cohort.

What are the implications of this for the NSS?

http://micromath.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/study-seasoned-profs-prepare-students-for-advanced-learning/

the REF according to Dilbert

So, some people seem to understand the REF

The Cloud

I have been thinking about "The Cloud" for some time now, and trying to understand what is new about it.

When I started in computing in 1980 I worked for a company called Hoskyns, which was a leader in what was called "facilities management".  This meant that they would run your computers (mainframes) for you - so that you could concentrate on the core business of the company.  Sometimes it worked well for both parties and sometimes not.  It tended to work well (as I remember) because Hoskyns could take over the entire computing for the company and were often providing much of the software anyhow.

In the 1990s there was much interest in outsourcing which was driven by the idea that businesses should concentrate on their core business and all other services should be handled by specialists brought in to provide that service.  This was especially true of cleaning and catering, but many other services were outsourced, including computing.  Whereas cleaning and catering has worked (in the sense that companies have stuck with it on the whole - though often to the detriment of the working condition of those actually doing the work) the picture in IT has been much more mixed with some notable disasters.  There are many reasons for this, but I would suggest that amongst them are:

• The lack of flexibility that most outsourcing contracts offer so that changes can become prohibitively expensive.
  
• Parts of the computing are effectively providing core services to the company so that close control is needed.
• Lack of understanding of all the issues by the company that is contracting the service (the outsourcing provider is a specialist doing it all the time, the company outsourcing its services does it once and does not fully understand the issues.
• Loss of control of things like when upgrades happen causing additional costs.

No doubt there are others, but there have been expensive fiascoes - especially in the public sector.

Now, these tended to involve moving control of existing services to a third party.  However, with the cloud we seem to be wanting to change our systems at the same time.  This worries me hugely - the costs of implementing a new system are large.  The staff development costs are usually the largest single cost (though often hidden in higher education as the loss of staff productivity through time out for training, lower efficiency while systems are learnt as they are expected to be absorbed).

So I think that the cloud needs to be approached with caution, with the following being areas where it may make sense:

• Where new systems are being adopted anyhow
  
• Systems that do not fully belong within the institution.  I am thinking here especially of VLEs and e-portfolios where continued access from graduates of the institution makes sense.

In short I think that there are some opportunities that the could offers, but it is nothing like as great as many of its advocates seem to suggest.

Research impact

Perhaps Dilbert has caught what many people feel about the research impact of the REF:

Perhaps Dilbert has caught what many people feel about the research impact of the ref

1984

In a case of reality matching art Amazon has been removing copies of 1984 from users' Kindles. see http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=49607 which says many of the obvious comments about the deletion of history etc, so I won't bother

Which university should top the league tables?

NB for reasons I dont understand there is a lot of white space before the tables.

I was playing about with the data from the university league table in the independent, and it seemed to me that it was looking at the wrong thing from a student's perspective, which ought to be the value added by going there.
So, I have produced two tables which show the value add calculated in different ways.
Table 1: I scaled the percentage of students getting a good degree by dividing them by 90.1, the percentage getting a good degree at Oxford and scaled the entry points to be out of 100 (ie I divided them by 530, the entry points of students entering Cambridge). Subtracting the scaled entry points from the scaled percentage getting a good degree yields the following table:

Rank	Institution	adjusted percentage getting a good degree	adjusted entry points	value add
1	Bolton	58.4	37.6	20.8
2	Bath Spa	71.8	51.3	20.6
3	London South Bank	53.8	34.9	18.9
4	Northampton	61.3	42.8	18.5
5	Coventry	67.1	49.0	18.1
6	Bradford	67.2	50.7	16.5
7	Exeter	88.6	72.6	16.1
8	University of Wales, Newport	56.2	40.4	15.8
9	Roehampton	57.8	42.3	15.5
10	Middlesex	52.5	37.4	15.2
11	Plymouth	66.9	51.9	15.0
12	Reading	79.6	64.7	14.9
13	Thames Valley	53.8	38.9	14.9
14	Sussex	88.3	73.5	14.8
15	Goldsmiths College	72.0	57.6	14.4
16	Stirling	75.4	61.1	14.3
17	Sheffield Hallam	64.5	50.3	14.2
18	Ulster	66.7	52.6	14.1
19	Winchester	63.7	50.5	13.2
20	Salford	60.1	46.9	13.2
21	West of England	62.1	49.1	13.0
22	Birmingham City	62.8	49.9	12.9
23	Napier	67.6	54.7	12.9
24	Gloucestershire	60.9	48.4	12.5
25	Nottingham Trent	62.6	50.1	12.5
26	Glamorgan	57.5	45.1	12.4
27	Bedfordshire	52.2	39.9	12.3
28	Aberystwyth	68.6	56.6	12.0
29	Buckinghamshire New	49.6	37.8	11.8
30	Keele	71.1	59.4	11.7
31	Huddersfield	59.1	47.4	11.7
32	Staffordshire	58.3	46.6	11.7
33	Brunel	70.7	59.1	11.7
34	SOAS	81.5	69.9	11.5
35	Brighton	65.3	53.8	11.5
36	Anglia Ruskin	58.1	46.6	11.5
37	Kingston	55.5	44.1	11.4
38	East London	45.1	34.1	11.0
39	Lampeter	62.3	51.4	10.9
40	City	70.7	60.3	10.4
41	Leeds Metropolitan	59.5	49.2	10.4
42	Bournemouth	63.3	53.6	9.7
43	Queen's, Belfast	78.0	68.5	9.5
44	Lincoln	58.7	49.6	9.2
45	Southampton	83.0	73.9	9.1
46	Westminster	55.1	46.0	9.1
47	Oxford Brookes	65.6	56.5	9.1
48	Bangor	61.8	52.8	8.9
49	Teesside	55.8	46.9	8.9
50	UWIC, Cardiff	54.0	45.1	8.9
51	Chester	60.3	51.4	8.9
52	Wolverhampton	45.7	36.8	8.8
53	Essex	67.1	58.4	8.7
54	Glasgow Caledonian	72.9	64.3	8.6
55	Kent	66.3	57.9	8.4
56	Leicester	76.6	68.3	8.3
57	Greenwich	47.1	38.8	8.3
58	De Montfort	54.4	46.5	7.9
59	Hull	62.6	55.2	7.4
60	Nottingham	84.0	77.0	7.0
61	East Anglia	75.0	68.1	6.9
62	Leeds	79.7	73.0	6.7
63	Aston	73.0	66.4	6.7
64	Manchester Metropolitan	56.9	50.4	6.6
65	Loughborough	74.8	68.3	6.5
66	Hertfordshire	52.9	46.9	6.0
67	Central Lancashire	56.5	50.5	6.0
68	Canterbury Christ Church	52.2	46.4	5.9
69	Sunderland	52.9	47.0	5.9
70	Worcester	50.7	45.0	5.7
71	Southampton Solent	47.9	42.4	5.4
72	Lancaster	76.4	71.2	5.2
73	Royal Holloway	73.8	68.7	5.1
74	Bristol	87.0	82.0	5.0
75	Queen Margaret	65.0	60.3	4.7
76	Bath	85.8	81.1	4.7
77	Robert Gordon	65.3	60.7	4.6
78	Surrey	68.7	64.2	4.5
79	St Andrews	93.1	88.9	4.3
80	Derby	53.0	49.0	4.0
81	Newcastle	79.0	75.1	3.9
82	Portsmouth	54.8	51.3	3.5
83	Liverpool John Moores	50.1	46.8	3.3
84	Sheffield	79.8	76.6	3.3
85	Liverpool	75.0	71.8	3.2
86	York St John	56.3	53.1	3.2
87	Queen Mary	67.5	64.4	3.1
88	Oxford	100.0	96.9	3.1
89	King's College London	80.1	77.0	3.1
90	Durham	87.5	84.5	3.0
91	Warwick	88.1	85.3	2.9
92	Chichester	51.8	49.0	2.8
93	Edge Hill	49.3	46.7	2.6
94	Cardiff	75.0	72.8	2.3
95	Aberdeen	77.4	75.3	2.1
96	York	82.9	80.9	2.0
97	Cumbria	52.7	50.8	1.9
98	Edinburgh	88.7	87.9	0.8
99	Birmingham	75.9	75.3	0.6
100	Northumbria	55.4	54.9	0.5
101	University College London	83.4	82.9	0.4
102	Manchester	78.3	78.1	0.2
103	Swansea	55.4	55.8	-0.3
104	Glasgow	76.0	81.1	-5.1
105	Cambridge	94.8	100.0	-5.2
106	London School of Economics	83.4	89.3	-5.8
107	West of Scotland *	51.2	59.2	-8.1
108	University of the Arts, London	65.3	73.7	-8.4
109	Heriot-Watt	61.1	71.0	-9.9
110	Strathclyde	82.8	93.3	-10.5
111	Imperial College	76.7	89.3	-12.6
112	Abertay Dundee	52.8	66.0	-13.2
113	Dundee	73.6	89.0	-15.4

However, it could be argued that completion rate is also important, and that students who drop out artificially raise the percentage completing with a good degree. If one adjusts for this then the table changes somewhat. The entry points is adjusted in the same way, and the good degrees is calculated as percentage getting a good degree times percentage completing, adjusting so that Oxford gets 100 (ie all figures are divided by .88). The resulting table then looks like:

Rank	Institution	Score completing and getting a good degree	adjusted entry	value add	Rank ignoring completion
1	Exeter	85.2	72.6	12.7	7
2	Bath Spa	62.4	51.3	11.2	2
3	Reading	74.1	64.7	9.5	12
4	Stirling	68.7	61.1	7.6	16
5	Northampton	49.6	42.8	6.9	4
6	Nottingham Trent	56.6	50.1	6.4	25
7	Aberystwyth	62.5	56.6	5.9	28
8	Sussex	79.0	73.5	5.6	14
9	Bradford	56.1	50.7	5.3	6
10	Sheffield Hallam	55.6	50.3	5.3	17
11	Nottingham	82.1	77.0	5.1	60
12	London South Bank	39.3	34.9	4.4	3
13	Roehampton	46.6	42.3	4.3	9
14	Winchester	54.6	50.5	4.1	19
15	Leicester	72.2	68.3	4.0	56
16	Buckinghamshire New	41.2	37.8	3.5	29
17	Plymouth	55.1	51.9	3.2	11
18	Oxford	100.0	96.9	3.1	88
19	Loughborough	71.3	68.3	3.0	65
20	Bristol	84.6	82.0	2.7	74
21	Southampton	76.4	73.9	2.5	45
22	Goldsmiths College	60.0	57.6	2.4	15
23	University of Wales, Newport	42.7	40.4	2.3	8
24	Brunel	61.3	59.1	2.2	33
25	Bath	82.8	81.1	1.7	76
26	West of England	50.7	49.1	1.6	21
27	UWIC, Cardiff	46.6	45.1	1.6	50
28	Keele	60.8	59.4	1.4	30
29	Gloucestershire	49.8	48.4	1.4	24
30	Leeds	74.4	73.0	1.4	62
31	East Anglia	69.3	68.1	1.2	61
32	Warwick	86.5	85.3	1.2	91
33	Brighton	55.0	53.8	1.1	35
34	Coventry	50.1	49.0	1.1	5
35	Bournemouth	54.7	53.6	1.1	42
36	Durham	85.6	84.5	1.1	90
37	Middlesex	38.3	37.4	0.9	10
38	Leeds Metropolitan	50.0	49.2	0.8	41
39	City	61.0	60.3	0.6	40
40	Kent	58.5	57.9	0.6	55
41	Staffordshire	47.2	46.6	0.6	32
42	St Andrews	89.4	88.9	0.6	79
43	Lancaster	71.7	71.2	0.5	72
44	Lincoln	50.0	49.6	0.4	44
45	Kingston	44.2	44.1	0.1	37
46	Bedfordshire	39.9	39.9	0.0	27
47	Oxford Brookes	56.5	56.5	0.0	47
48	Queen's, Belfast	68.4	68.5	-0.1	43
49	Bolton	37.5	37.6	-0.1	1
50	Huddersfield	47.3	47.4	-0.1	31
51	SOAS	69.8	69.9	-0.2	34
52	Ulster	52.1	52.6	-0.6	18
53	Birmingham City	49.2	49.9	-0.7	22
54	Greenwich	38.0	38.8	-0.7	57
55	York	80.1	80.9	-0.9	96
56	Aston	65.5	66.4	-0.9	63
57	Westminster	45.0	46.0	-1.0	46
58	Thames Valley	37.9	38.9	-1.0	13
59	Newcastle	73.9	75.1	-1.1	81
60	King's College London	75.8	77.0	-1.2	89
61	Essex	56.7	58.4	-1.6	53
62	Sheffield	74.8	76.6	-1.7	84
63	Hull	53.2	55.2	-2.0	59
64	De Montfort	44.4	46.5	-2.0	58
65	Canterbury Christ Church	44.2	46.4	-2.2	68
66	Salford	44.6	46.9	-2.3	20
67	Wolverhampton	34.2	36.8	-2.6	52
68	Royal Holloway	66.0	68.7	-2.7	73
69	Chichester	46.2	49.0	-2.8	92
70	East London	31.3	34.1	-2.8	38
71	Lampeter	48.6	51.4	-2.8	39
72	University College London	79.8	82.9	-3.2	101
73	Liverpool	68.4	71.8	-3.4	85
74	Worcester	41.5	45.0	-3.4	70
75	Surrey	60.5	64.2	-3.7	78
76	Queen Mary	60.6	64.4	-3.7	87
77	Birmingham	71.2	75.3	-4.1	99
78	Cardiff	68.6	72.8	-4.2	94
79	York St John	48.7	53.1	-4.3	86
80	Napier	50.3	54.7	-4.4	23
81	Southampton Solent	38.0	42.4	-4.5	71
82	Bangor	48.2	52.8	-4.6	48
83	Glamorgan	40.4	45.1	-4.7	26
84	Manchester	73.4	78.1	-4.7	102
85	Teesside	42.1	46.9	-4.8	49
86	Chester	46.5	51.4	-4.9	51
87	Edinburgh	82.9	87.9	-5.0	98
88	Sunderland	41.3	47.0	-5.8	69
89	Cambridge	94.1	100.0	-5.9	105
90	Portsmouth	45.2	51.3	-6.0	82
91	Hertfordshire	40.8	46.9	-6.1	66
92	Swansea	49.7	55.8	-6.1	103
93	Central Lancashire	44.1	50.5	-6.4	67
94	Manchester Metropolitan	43.4	50.4	-6.9	64
95	London School of Economics	82.0	89.3	-7.2	106
96	Edge Hill	39.1	46.7	-7.6	93
97	Derby	41.4	49.0	-7.6	80
98	Liverpool John Moores	39.1	46.8	-7.6	83
99	Anglia Ruskin	38.2	46.6	-8.4	36
100	Robert Gordon	52.0	60.7	-8.7	77
101	Glasgow Caledonian	55.3	64.3	-8.9	54
102	Queen Margaret	51.2	60.3	-9.1	75
103	Northumbria	45.3	54.9	-9.6	100
104	Cumbria	40.8	50.8	-10.0	97
105	Aberdeen	61.9	75.3	-13.4	95
106	Imperial College	74.7	89.3	-14.6	111
107	Glasgow	65.9	81.1	-15.2	104
108	University of the Arts, London	57.7	73.7	-16.0	108
109	Heriot-Watt	51.0	71.0	-20.0	109
110	West of Scotland	35.6	59.2	-23.6	107
111	Strathclyde	68.7	93.3	-24.6	110
112	Abertay Dundee	34.3	66.0	-31.7	112
113	Dundee	51.3	89.0	-37.7	113

Hello again - and Kindle

An interesting article on the use of Kindle - the e-book reader from Amazon in. Inside Higher Education. see http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/06/15/crowell while it focuses on the economics it makes some claims for their ability to enhance pedagogy.

I noticed that in making the economic case the capital cost of the Kindle (the Sony equivalent is over £200), with savings of about 30% on the printed books one needs to spend £600 on books to save money, and there is no second hand market.  What is more they cannot easily be shared between people (other than passing the reader around and thus ones whole library).

However, the point about access to journal articles etc being easy and convenient and therefore changing pedagogy is likely to have an impact on the way in which these are accessed. 

However, I suspect that the e-bookreader and then laptop will converge with very high quality screens and lower weight as laptops loose any motorised parts (discs, CD/DVDs etc).

But that is another matter.