ITC-WIT Southeast University Debacle

Believe me I know that the general feeling from staff in WIT is complete negativity about the merger.
The big worry is Carlow and Waterford will have to merge as ITs before going forward to the with technological university application. So the worst case and quite possible scenario if the proposal fails we could be left with a lame duck Institute of Technology of the south east with lots of bad blood between both campuses.These are facts you wont hear from the politicians but if this goes ahead and then goes pear shaped it could actually cause a lot of damage to the region .

imacman wrote: »

The TUI represents all lecturers in both institutes , plus a college isn't going to get very far without lecturer support .

There are other people working in both institutes, from admin staff, porters to researchers who wouldn't be considered as academics.

I know at least 2 lecturers from one institute who aren't in the union.

Regardless, it's a bad sign when the union is publically commenting on these issues.

imacman wrote: »

So porters and admin staff are going to teach students !!!!!!!!!! if you don't have the lecturers working together you have nothing

Try operating any company without the porters to open up in the morning!

Many researchers in both institutes are working through funding programmes or through commercial research groups and won't be in unions. Senior mgt need to work together too.

Everyone needs to work together - a college is an ecosystem. I think the trust is gone at this stage anyway but it seems the government will force it through and we could be left with a second rate merged IoT.

This would be a great thesis in Change Management!

Took this from another thread on the subject .Sums up the situation really well and the problems Waterford have with the merger going forward


Originally Posted by David Cullinane

A future delivery of University status to Waterford or the Southeast is at a critical juncture. It is without doubt the single biggest challenge facing Waterford in the short to long term. After operating for decades with one hand tied behind our backs we are now faced with our backs against the wall. Those within WIT say the collective (WIT/ITC) cannot meet the criteria within any reasonable timeframe. IT Carlow disagree..

I have been given the following figures which demonstrate the extent of the problem. I received them from a senior figure within WIT. They relate to the criteria and where both institutes are at:

Criteria 1.

Enrolment in the application institutes in research programmes at level 9-10 will not be less than 4% of FTE enrolments at level 8 to 10 (from honours degrees to PhD); growing to 7% and in a small number of fields

WIT is between 3 and 3.5% at the moment and based on its funding projections 25MEuro this year will soon meet this criteria
ITC is at 1.2% and has only 1.2MEuro of research funding

Translating this in to numbers. WIT has 161 students registered at level 9/10 research masters and PhD in 2011-2012. Today it is close to 200. ITC has 27 registered masters and PhD students in 2011-2012. This would have to grow about 100 students. Supporting these students would require a huge increase in postgraduate funding. The research funding is too low for this level of activity. I do not believe that the merged institute could meet this criteria within a reasonable time frame. The impact is that the combined statistics from the two institutes are much lower than the minimum criteria for TU status

Criteria 2.

• 45% of FT academic staff holding a level 10 qualification (or equivalence in professional experience and appropriate end quals; this cannot account for >10% of FT staff)

• Level 10 to increase to 65% within 10 years of designation

• Fields for doctoral training: >80% staff with level 10 quals; proven and sustained research outputs

Likewise the concern here is the percentage of qualified staff to level 10. For WIT it is 31% and ITC 21%. Taking in to account the number of WIT registered for PhD and nearing completion the institute will bring the number to 38%. Adding the staff with professional qualifications this could be 45% with a short period. The maximum number for ITC incorporating professional qualifications could reach 31% a major gap from the required 45%.

There is an interrelationship between the need to grow PhD students and staff qualifications. In the fields of doctoral training >80% staff with level 10 qualifications. WIT meets this criteria in its two key areas of Bio Pharma research (life sciences) and Telecommunications (TSSG). There is no such area in ITC.

Finally the last issue of International reputation and proven and sustained outputs.

WIT has two areas of research of critical mass in Biopharma and Telecommunications. We have major collaborations internationally. Some examples. WIT is part of 2 national SFI research centres

SSPC - Synthesis & Solid State Pharmaceutical Cluster

CONNECT Centre for Future Networks & Communications

WIT has three Technology Gateways.

The worry is the lack of a critical mass of research activity in ITC which would have a major impact on this key criteria.

So you can see from above the problem. And the real difficulty is that any WIT/ITC application will be judged not by politicians but by an international panel of experts. Sorry for the long post but it is such an important issue. So where do we go from here?

imacman wrote: »

WIT didn't sully anyone's name ,and WITs press release was measured and professional compared to the condescending nature of Carlows one. Either way all this points to one thing , the TU merger is a dead,dead duck , which I have been saying for the last few weeks.

WIT are referencing a report that was subsequently pulled due to errors, not exactly good academic practise.

The statement by ITC is trying to build bridges by talking about synergies but I do agree that referencing the poor IT infrastructure and financial woes recently experienced by WIT doesn't help.

However, it should be remembered that WIT is not as professional as they claim to be and that they have experienced major advantages in recent years due to having sitting Ministers which weren't afforded other ITs.

It is about the big picture folks and the bottom line is that a Technical University in the South-East would be a huge advantage for the area and everyone, including politicians, should put aside their bias and do what is best for the region. It would also help if people grew up a little and accepted that improvements can always be made and when areas of possible improvement are highlighted that people take this on-board instead of feeling slighted - suppose to be third-level not primary level.

The report was withdrawn at the behest of Professor Taylor.

She cited Professor Taylor's email: “Following my meetings in Waterford and Carlow yesterday, it is clear that there are errors in my draft report that need to be corrected; there are also changes in tone and emphasis that I wish to correct. As I stressed yesterday, it was clearly intended as a draft and it is important to me to work with both institutions to reach an agreed report. In order to take things forward, I wish to withdraw the draft and prepare a revised draft taking into account the feedback from both institutions. I will endeavour to finish this as soon as possible. I should be grateful if you could convey this to the Chairs of the governing bodies for both institutions.”

This is in print and is not a supposition or an opinion unlike the one you are proposing; if people has the courage of their convictions they should air them and not hide behind innuendo or engage in "politicking."

You keep repeating your assertions but have ignored the issues that have been raised regarding corporate governance and the lack of IT infrastructure within WIT.

I wonder is there any views from Carlow about the state of play post election? I know things get passionate on this tread, so I should declare myself as a WIT-head. The talk in Waterford is that with Labour and Howlin on the margins most of the push will be gone out of the SE TU project in its current shape. Dublin is likely to proceed, but under a heavily revised bill. Any thoughts, views ?