Best University Workplace 2016 survey open

At my former employer, I suppose what the most dangerous practice was that the Head of the School was there until he/she left (often for promotion). This meant that the selected few continued to receive favourable treatment for the rest of their careers as well. I suppose that this also encouraged "empire building". It is far better for Heads of Department to have limited tenure in the post. There were two ways to tell how the Head of the Department was lying: The first way was there was a slight flinch in his left eye that lasted a fraction of a second. However, this was only accurate 50% of the time. The second way to know how they were lying was when he opened his mouth. This, invariably, was the more accurate method.

There seems to be a rivalry between the humanities' and the scientists' departments of the subject of macroeconomics. The humanities have a sort of double-think here and would like their subject to become more scientific, and the scientists would certainly welcome this new baby to their ranks. However at the same time, the humanities are not honestly trying to make this transition. They make no effort to develop macroeconomics into a science, and are they clearly more satisfied to continue to control the biased amount of knowledge (however out of date) that filters down to their students, to the point where the students see a need for a revolution and a new syllabus. Recently a new start has been made at explaining of what our social consists and about how it works in my new book "Consequential Macroeconomics" (write to me at chesterdh@hotmail.com for a reviewer's e-copy) which applies systems engineering to the national organization of society. This is important because it at last turns macroeconomics into a true science instead of the pseudo version that is current. I would (joyfully) like to share this knowledge and I suggest that my working paper about using a mechanical device to teach the basics of macroeconomics would be a good introduction for those who initially lack intensive thinking skills (see SSRN paper id 2600103).