Comments from change.org.
Current Students
"The sudden announcement of up to 120 academic job losses has made for an intensely unpleasant atmosphere across the Health Schools and in doing so, has already had immediate impacts on students and staff. The metrics that are being used to assess staff redundancies are not reflective of teaching quality, nor the natural tendencies of research income to ebb and flow. It is imperative that staff and students should be involved in the discussion on how best to implement any changes for the benefit of King's future financial stability, while maintaining its global reputation as a leading institution in research and teaching."
"I would seriously consider leaving if either of my supervisors go. They are irreplaceable experts in my field, I signed up to do my PhD project with them, and our department can simply not afford to lose any more expertise or resources."
"As the collective pool of public funds dwindles, so do the chances for high quality science to be accomplished, ushering in a culture of myopic, money-driven research, leaving little time for teaching, supervision, or home life for all academics, particularly women. These redundancies are merely a symptom of this broader ideological shift towards privatisation, transforming academia into a profit-driven marketplace, rather than the rigorous pursuit of an intrinsic good: knowledge. The majority of those being made redundant are not poor academics, they have simply prioritised high-quality research and teaching over bringing in grants and pumping out low-grade publications. The aim of this petition is to allow staff and students to experience a fleeting sense of political agency by openly discussing viable alternatives to redundancy with the Principal of KCL, rather than simply being presented with these redundancies by the latter as a fait accompli."
"Faculty is the biggest asset of any academic-research organization. I joined King's for my PhD , not because of the buildings or because of the cafeteria or because of the computing facililty, but primarily and most importantly because of an excellent research mentor. And, I have had a good experience learning and doing science under my supervisor's guidance. One of the first reason , I would recommend any future aspirant to apply for a PhD in my department would be because of the excellent and helpful faculty here. Making faculty redundant will ensure that King's will face a big challenge to attract the best students ( and the associated income), as well doing cutting."
"As a KCL Pharmacy Student, the Pharmacy Department has been ranked as the best Pharmacy school in the whole world. Reduction in the number of staff would lead to this title being forsaken, and the staff that do remain will be low in morale to carry out the same standard of teaching. I see lecturers which are so passionate about their field of expertise- and that is exactly what they are. Experts. As a KCL student I am proud and privileged to be taught by the leading researchers in their field. Making these individual's redundant defeats the purpose and quite frankly goes against the spirit of the College. We have some of the best teachers and therefore as a result are one of the best Universities in the world. And it's all down to our teachers."
"It is imperative that King's College London demonstrates that it values its Health School academics in the important areas of medicine, biomedical science and psychiatry. The people affected are the guardians, mentors and inspiration for our next generation of researchers, innovators and clinicians. Removing a significant portion of these individuals sends a hammer-blow to student and staff morale. Long-term consequences for the Institutions affected will be bleak if this proposed ‘restructure’ is implemented, as the rich and diverse pool of academics is significantly depleted. As such, these Institutions will not be able to attract the brightest minds, its hard earned reputation will decease and this vicious cycle will be perpetuated. A university is defined by its students and staff, this is sacrosanct."
"As a student at KCL, I am appalled by these decisions, which have been imposed on us, with no student consultation, in a cynical and calculated fashion. To suggest that lecturers surviving the cut can easily pick up the slack for their less fortunate colleagues is ludicrous. I do not know a single academic in my department who is not already stretched far beyond the official remit of their job. Furthermore, the implication that lecturers and supervisors are interchangeable is insultingly misguided. I will certainly not be staying on at KCL after the completion of my PhD, and expect that student feedback on the quality of teaching and amount of contact time over the next few years will cause future prospective students to vote with their feet, regardless of the snazziness of student dorms on offer."
"The lack of student and staff engagement in these plans has been outrageous. King's have shown a clear lack of concern for both their staff and their students. Cutting staff will only reduce quality of both research and teaching in areas that need to be progressed globally."
"The proposed mass redundances will be to the detriment of KCL students, many of whom are preparing to be future health professionals. In particular, I am concerned to hear that part of the criteria for redundancy will be hours spent teaching. As a KCL medical student, I benefit more from a few hours of good quality teaching than many hours of poor quality teaching. I have experienced both. I do not find the latter to be effective. Neither will it be eliminated by setting a time-based threshold. Does this even include time taken to prepare lecture or sessions?
The uncertainty and impending loss of collegues and teachers will inevitably cause morale and satisfaction within the health school to continue its already established decline. This brutal approach is the wrong way to go about solving the difficulties that the Health School might be facing."
Alumni
"One of the individuals at risk of losing his job, Dr John Pizzey, was my BSc project supervisor this year. However this was not his only role: running a large second year neuroscience module, teaching on a number of other courses, including medicine; in addition to performing the duties of admissions tutor and a number of other roles in the college. Despite this, he still found the time to help students to the best of his ability (and he is extremely knowledgeable and passionate about his subject) not to mention the many hours he spent with us, his project students on developing our lab skills, over-and-above what is required of a supervisor.
It's ridiculous that he is at risk of being made redundant, as well as a number of other enthusiastic and diligent members of staff. It would be a loss for the college and will no doubt impact negatively on teaching and the experience at KCL for both current and future students. It seems like a short-sighted plan by management, and requires, at the very least, a rethink. (Sheffield)"
"I spent nearly 7 years training in the health sciences in London. My experience at KCL and NIMR led me to respect and value the importance of retaining quality scientists within these institutions. First, without high-quality academic scientists, the ability to generate innovative therapies and products that will make an impact in the clinic is mitigated- you can't have innovation without a solid scientific core driving those activities. Second, the academic staff is critical for training how the next generation thinks and solves problems-- without rigorous training clinical programs fall short and fail. I strongly oppose these redundancies as I believe KCL will suffer-- in reputation and esteem, and ultimately revenue. In science, reputation drives all revenue streams-- from the ability to secure funding to the desire of patients to be treated in associated hospitals, to the ability to attract leading scientists. (New York)"
"It saddens me deeply that so many inspirational researchers and lecturers should find themselves at risk. During my MSc at the IoP I benefited hugely from the diversity of lecturers on the course; some of whom only taught a single lecture but it allowed us to engage with academics at the cutting edge of science. The metrics used are totally inappropriate and reflective of an ignorance (willful or otherwise) of the nature of excellent research. Science is always going to produce controversial ideas that might not attract funding; this does not mean that the idea in question is flawed or unworthy of merit. Equally, one does not know where a research project may ultimately lead.
In an era where mental illness is still so poorly understood and services are woefully under-funded, these redundancies are not just devastating to the lecturers, researchers, and students involved. This is yet another blow to some of the most vulnerable people in our society; those with mental health problems, to whom those at risk are dedicating their careers."
"As someone who earned their PhD at Kings and who has formed collaborations with the excellent researchers there, I am deeply worried about the impact this will have not only on current staff and students but on the international reputation of KCL. Academic success is built upon reputation and expertise, KCL have been monumentally short-sighted regarding the impact this will have long term both in securing future scientists and grant money. It comes as no surprise to any academic that grant money and teaching is important but these are the very things that will be harder to come by when you initiate a cull like this. (Canada)"
"As a former undergraduate and doctoral student at KCL health schools, I am shocked at the decision to enact this large number of redundancies, which will clearly have a detrimental impact on the quality of teaching and research at Kings. Following my current post-doc in Australia, I certainly shan't be looking to return to KCL if the current management policies are continued. (Australia)"
KCL Academics
"Over the past 20 years, I have done both an MD and MSc from the IoP, as a trainee and consultant old age psychiatrist. The quality of teaching and support for research over this time frame has never ceased to be of the highest quality. How an educational organisation can claim to offer the depth and breadth of teaching and research opportunities to trainees and clinical academics by cutting a sizeable component of the academic workforce is beyond belief.
This petition has the support of the most widely respected academics in the world. They now look on, aghast, at the systematic dismantling of an Institute that has remained at the head of its field for decades."
"This damages the reputation of KCL as an employer to top research staff and clinicians. It lowers morale as it comes so shortly after another similar round of redundancies that were assessed on a completely different basis. It's clearly a sign of bad management and not a true assessment of the fantastic effort and success that the doctors and scientists have provided to the health schools at KCL."
"I have worked for over 30 years at the Institute of Psychiatry and until now have always felt proud of being part of the cutting edge research, world class clinical services and high quality teaching that we provide. Over and above what I have contributed myself as a clinical researcher and teacher, being a member of the Institute/King's and the Maudsley has given me recognition and respect within the profession that I have highly valued. This ill thought through plan for redundancies could cause significant reputational damage to King's not only by putting at risk a large amount of existing high quality research (in many cases conducted in collaboration with other universities or NHS trusts), and jeopardise student learning experiences but also showing King's as an appallingly bad employer who shows no real concern for the welfare of its staff. How can we promote ourselves as a leading Academic Health Science Centre, if we take such a callous view of our own staff.
While the difficult financial situation does clearly need to be addressed why is there no meaningful consultation taking place about alternative ways of managing the financial situation. Without engaging staff in considering alternatives it is difficult to see how any meaningful assessment can be made of the balance between cost savings and the negative impact (both financial and reputational) of the planned redundancies."
"I'm a KCL Professor and Lead a Department in the IoP and a Clinical Academic Group in KHP. Putting to one side for a moment the effect on individual academics who will lose their posts, the negative impact of the restructuring upon King's research, teaching and delivery of clinical services is depressingly clear to all of us in leadership positions in the organisation. We care about King's - we've chosen to base our working lives within the organisation - and our colleagues, students and patients are what make it a great place to work and strive to make even better. The senior management team have an opportunity to show that they share our aspirations and concerns for King's by listening to your petition."
"Firing dedicated staff might seem to fix the short-term financial problem but the long-term consequences will be catastrophic to the reputation of KCL and our ability to attract good people. Who will want to work for a University that has taken the decision to make staff redundant on a grand scale twice in four years: in 2010 and now again in 2014, in both cases with no warning and brutal speed? If you treat people with permanent positions as expendable then don't expect to attract the superstars - they will take their talents elsewhere."
Academics
"This is not only bad management, but it is also crass. The purported goal is "maintaining and improving our position as one of the world’s leading institutions". It's not clear how gaining a reputation for appalling treatment of staff is going to do that. Also, it's left unclear whether the ultimate goal is a smaller workforce, or whether KCL wants to attract research superstars to replace the people it sacks. It's hard to see how the former could improve its position as a leading institution, and it's also hard to see how KCL will attract superstars when they hear about its disdainful treatment of its employees. The 'confidential' document sent to staff, available on David Colquhoun's blog, also is described as a 'consultation' document, yet it is all too apparent that the decisions have already been made. Finally, a reliance on grant income as the measure of research quality shows a totally cynical attitude to research, whereby the more expensive you can make it, the more it is valued.
I am ashamed to be an alumnus of the Institute of Psychiatry when its senior staff are involved in such a shameful exercise. (Oxford)"
"I am an academic at UCL, and the goings on at KCL have astonished me and colleagues here. Quite apart from the absurd criteria apparently being used to select certain staff for redundancy, the management at KCL appear utterly blind to the severe reputational damage that will follow. They should be in doubt that KCL will be viewed as one of the worst places to work in UK academia, and I would certainly advise my best post-docs to avoid KCL in considering future career options. (London)"
"I have been associated with King's College for 25 years and am embarrassed to see this institution treat its staff like this."
"The IoP has an international reputation for research and academic achievement that has taken decades to establish. Once lost this will be impossible to regain. Its academics are world renowned and the research advances that the IoP provides in clinical and basic neuroscience are unparalleled. There has to be another solution other than losing talented minds. (Australia)"
"These job cuts will cause great damage to UK science, education, and the reputation of Kings College London. There must be better ways to fund new estates than shooting yourself in the foot by sending a very negative message to existing and prospective students and staff. How will remaining staff see their future at Kings? How will they deal with the unavoidable increase in teaching/admin load? How can the current quality of teaching/research be maintained in these conditions? Shame on Kings! (London)"
"I am a Professor of Developmental Disorders of the Brain in the Netherlands. Some of my most valued colleagues are at King's and are deeply distressed by these plans. I understand budget cuts and even redundancies cannot always be avoided, but these plans could be disastrous for the international allure and scientific status of Kings. Please talk to your staff and listen to what they have to say! (The Netherlands)"
"Great research is not carried out by a few fund-raising superstars, but by the teams behind them who contribute to the ideas and to their implementation, and who through their contributions to teaching and academic administration have created the environment where research can prosper. They share in the success KCL has been built up over decades, and it is absolutely crazy to disrupt these successful teams. What is particularly worrying is that the redundancies are apparently to be identified on the basis of grant income generated. In other words, researchers jobs at KCL depend on how costly they can make their research, rather than how good it is, how much it can benefit society or the economy, or how much value for money it represents.
It shouldn't take "two brains" to recognize that this strategy will produce a perverse incentive to do costly and inefficient, rather than beneficial research. A tortuous analogy: Man Utd's league position is not determined solely by their strikers. After a difficult year when they failed to qualify for Europe, the solution was not to make the goal keeper and defenders redundant. That would have been counterproductive. (York)"
Prospective Students
"As a parent of a prospective medical student I am naturally very concerned and alarmed at the proposed redundancies.
What impact will this have on teaching?"
"As a future medicine student at KCL, i believe the people involved in the health schools are a huge part of my career and future. thank you."
Other
"The management at King's should focus on what their title says, management, which is already quite poor. I understand that King's wants to go higher through the league tables and needs to make a profit but more profit can be made by investing in their staff as it is only through the research by the staff that King's has risen through the ranks as it has.
The redundancies show the short sightedness of the management. With the way staff are being treated, the management are creating an environment and reputation where in the future, good researchers and lecturers will want to leave and those who had once considered coming to King's will avoid it like the plague, and rightly so. Thus affecting the college's future ranking, reputation and its ability to generate more research funding. The redundancies will not only hamper research, but can only destroy the morale of the remaining staff and leave them over stretched, which will then have a knock on effect to students.
One of the reasons King's hasn't risen as high as it could is due to poor to mediocre student satisfaction in the very schools that they are looking to make redundancies. Rather than improving on that, they seem to want to destroy it even further.
Understandably King's wants to rise further through the ranks and increase its income. But rankings are based on combinations of research, reputation, student satisfaction and staff student ratios. Income can be generated by improving its standing in the tables. These redundancies removes researchers, creates a terrible reputation for Kings as an institution, worsens student satisfaction and worsens its staff student ratios. (Middlesex)"
"While the economic climate is bound to necessitate difficult decisions, an absolute metric with virtually no consultation or transparency is as dangerous as it is disrespectful to the most important asset of any academic institution; the researchers, teaching staff and students that are what define KCL. Such a metric does not consider the wider impact the loss of individuals can have; many of these 120 academics will employ multiple post-docs, support countless students, and collaborate with other groups that will also suffer irreparably from the loss of smaller, specialized groups and individuals that do not make the harsh funding or teaching cut-off. The fact that KCL needs to be managed with good business sense is clear, but it is not a corporate body and must not be modelled on one. Doing so will tarnish KCL’s reputation as a centre focussed on research and teaching excellence, and directly influence its ability to attract funding and the best students and researchers worldwide. For the sake of the university’s continued success and contribution to society, as much as the security and loyalty of the staff, this must be considered more delicately."
"While the management of KCL believes they are doing this to "manage their costs" they fail to realize the long term costs of such actions. The decrease interest in their college of well qualified professors and researchers who don't see a stable position in KCL. And the cost of trying to get great people like these back when the college has more money to spend. This is a short sighted "save money now" at the expense of people, research, reputation and long term costs. (USA)"
"Skills and knowledge once lost can not be rebuilt. This is such a short sighted measure to sort out financial problems. (Wantage)"
If anyone quoted here would like their quote removed, or has been miscategorised, please do email us and we will edit as necessary.