HAVING RECENTLY returned- bronzed and fit, from his summer jaunt in Biarritz, Mr Chatterbox received an invite to UCL’s graduation ceremony. He was confident that, whatever disagreements he may have had with UCL Plc over the years – (a hideous polytechnic-style logo, cuts in academic staffing budgets, attempts to undermine the historic University of London) - University College London (est. 1826) was a institution that would be able to put on a graduation ceremony comparable with Cambridge (est. 1209) or at worst with Durham University (est. 1832). However he was swiftly brought back to harsh reality. UCL Plc (est. 2003) had decided to hold the ceremony in the Logan Hall, a venue placed within that monstrosity of Sixties architecture, the University of London’s Institute of Education.
The choice of venue has been a subject of controversy. Previously the University of London had run the graduation function and the ceremonies were held in the Albert Hall. Since UCL had taken on the task, many graduates and staff have felt that the Logan Hall was not appropriate for such an occasion. The trouble, according to the College, is that there is no appropriate space within UCL and therefore the choice is a compromise between capacity and proximity to the Wilkins Buildings for a drinks reception afterwards. The resulting relatively expensive tickets in recent years, (£40 per person in 2006), are due to the costs incurred by hiring the hall from the University of London.
The hall was decorated with hideous banners with the new corporate logo for UCL Plc hanging from the walls, lending the feeling of a meeting of the North Korean Politburo. Furthermore, the ceremony descended into near ridicule before it even began when the genial face of Professor Malcolm Grant, our beloved Provost and President, appeared on the screen at the back of the platform to introduce a promotional video on the merits of UCL Plc. One student commented: “I half expected the camera to pan out to show him in Bermuda shorts, with a cocktail in his hands and two bikini-clad girls on either side, apologising for not being able to make it.” The room collectively struggled to suppress laughter as the video extolled the many virtues of UCL, unfortunately making the interesting sound trite and finishing with a series of vox pop interviews with UCL students. All of this was set to the “inspiring” strains of former M Person Heather Small’s pop ballad Proud. “The whole thing was totally misconceived,” commented one parent. “I mean, who signed that video off? Who actually thought that it was good?” Or appropriate for that matter. Was it just Mister Chatterbox who thought of Anton Chekhov’s dictum that “The University brings out all abilities, including incapability”?
Unfortunately it was not the only element of the ceremony that hit the wrong note; the academic procession mounted the stage, the backdrop turned to a PowerPoint Presentation and the audience were treated a series of banal phrases flashing up such as Your Future Starts Here and Celebrating Success. (What else does one celebrate?) “Cheap. Cheap. Cheap. I was ashamed.” spat one graduate.
A source within the Registrar’s department said that the use of the video was “under review” and was “perhaps a mis-take”. Perhaps?
The unreasonably early cut off point for booking tickets provoked anger amongst students missing out on graduating because they had missed the deadline by a few days. “I think that a bit of flexibility would have been appreciated. Surely the graduation ceremony is organised for my convenience not for someone who is being paid for it.” There was a feeling amongst senior members of the university that the restrictions placed this year were draconian with many members of academic staff angry that they had been refused entry to the drinks reception after the ceremony since they had not been allocated the required wristbands. My source defended this policy saying that the number of “freeloaders” who had gate crashed the reception in previous years had been unacceptable but conceded that the scheme was, again, “under review”. However one graduate, who had asked a number of friends along, complained sniffily: “Its not as if we were drinking Krug ‘76. Quite the reverse.”
Several students said there was a feeling that the graduation was “second rate” and “shabby”. A member of staff conceded that they still had not found the right tone for the occasion but said that in a “long term view” graduations had improved and were more “personalised” since the days when theywere hosted by the University of London.
What kind of university is it that cannot organise a fitting graduation ceremony? The words ‘piss up’ and ‘brewery’ spring to mind. While it has to be admitted they appear to be rectifying their mistakes and a number of issues are “under review” , several final year students are worried that this means “no change”. “The Provost listening to our concerns is about as likely as the Pope putting a condom machine in the Vatican lavatories,” was how one put it.
If how a university marks the graduation of its students is indicative of the respect in which the institution holds them, then it is clear that UCL Plc holds its students in low regard. A non- UCL academic believes: “With the introduction of variable fees the student is becoming a client and therefore has a greater ability to make demands of services from the university. I would advise any student who is worried about their graduation to raise it as an issue of concern.”
Perhaps we should. It is clear that the college on its own cannot look after the interests of its students. As John Ciardi once said, “A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students.”