Dr David Yates

Officially, my account is satirical.

Our definition of a good department chair? They let the blood spill on their carpet and keep it out of the dean’s office.

No one could have foreseen that our new policy wouldn’t work. Except the people who advised us it wouldn’t work, but we fired all of them.

Our policy of secretly recording you in class is intended to create clarity, reassurance, and trust.

We want you to be the best department you can be, paying below regional averages and with a high teaching load that minimizes the time available for research.

This is the result of decades of neglect and dismantling from both major parties. And the 'populist' response to their failures is an anti-intellectual movement that would go in for the kill. It would appear that the UK just doesn't want to lead in this area -- or any area.

Step 1: Destroy university by bad leadership Step 2: Depart with payoff Step 3: Become "HE consultant” advising others how to run universities Step 4: Join Gov't inquiry into failing universities Step 5: Produce report expressing “serious concern” about sector governance 😉

Peer review was supposed to be science’s quality filter, but somewhere along the way it started acting more like a bouncer who only lets in the regulars. It’s slow, it tends to favor established labs and familiar names, and it gets uncomfortable around anything too unconventional. Papers loaded with mountains of data tend to cruise through, while bold ideas that actually challenge the consensus get stuck in limbo or turned away at the door. The irony is that where a paper gets published almost never determines its real worth. What actually matters is what the scientific community does with it afterward, whether people cite it, argue with it, build on it, or use it to blow up a long-held assumption. That’s where the value lives, not in the journal’s logo. A major survey a few years back found that roughly 70% of researchers think the current system is fundamentally broken, and it’s not hard to see why. Publicly funded research hides behind paywalls, editors chase whatever topic is hot that month, and the whole incentive structure pushes toward safe bets over genuinely risky and potentially important work. Science has always been complicated and deeply human and full of ego and inertia, but the conversation is shifting.

GP system is a mess, says Shipman

Teaching Excellence Framework.

Something for managers in HE perhaps?

When the literature review deadline is tomorrow

The journal: “your work is being cited” Me: 😃 The citation: “…as he stupidly and unattractively argues…”

the most annoying shift i've experienced in academia

Fix it? We love your department’s dysfunction — we can punish it and use it as a cautionary tale to help us keep the other departments in line!

University staff: economy class Senior management: different rules😉 Former Vice Chancellor of Aberdeen University spent £28140 on business-class trips to Doha, Canada, New York, India & China While Aberdeen is engulfed in funding crisis dailyrecord.co.uk/news/outgoing-…

@0151Sam64 The Johnson reference is also not lost on me!

@DavidYatesPhD Anonymous reviews are the last bastion of academic scoundrel. Stay strong 💪

The harshest rejection I've seen in my career so far. 5 rounds, one reviewer fine, one on a real high horse. I'm finding so often that I'm drinking alone these days. Questioning whether I'm cut out for this? So many things that I can't reconcile right now.

@Jasper231231 I just can't believe it. So many things wrong with academia right now.

@DavidYatesPhD 5 rounds. I’m not in your discipline, but wtf??

We know this verdict will be disappointing.... Yeah whatever.

Union busting comes in many forms.