.@UniversitiesUK releases a statement in which they attempt to defend their controversial use of consultation responses to Q 3a regarding acceptable level of risk. My thoughts in tweets below. (@JosephineCumbo @AtheneDonald @henryhtapper @ucu)
Link: employerspensionsforum.co.uk/sites/default/…
Link: employerspensionsforum.co.uk/sites/default/…
UUK writes: "Employers were weighted equally in collating responses. All responses were considered and are included in the percentages above. We were mindful that some responses were not officially authorised by the institution and reflected this in our thinking...." 1/
UUK cont.: "In forming our overall response, we also considered the different sizes of USS employers." 2/
UUK cont.: "In light of the public commentary on the 2017 survey, a few employers have raised concerns that they did not have the opportunity to discuss the response with governing bodies and have asked Universities UK to formally change or discount their responses..." 3/
UUK cont.: "to the consultation document.
Those changes have been noted, but we do not believe that they would have made a material difference to our response to USS." 4/
Those changes have been noted, but we do not believe that they would have made a material difference to our response to USS." 4/
UUK cont.: "This is because in developing our response, Universities UK did not only draw on the survey as a source of evidence. We also drew on a wide range of evidence sources including:" 5/
DRUM ROLL, while we anticipate a devastating list of highly credible sources of evidence and rigorous scientific analysis, as befits the voice of UK universities, of evidence to back up their attitude towards risk... 6/
#1 on their list: Another survey! This one accompanied by "employer events"!: "USS employer events, led by Universities UK and a Universities UK survey in September 2016 on the long-term, strategic priorities for pensions in the higher education sector" 7/
#2: Yet more employer events and consultation responses in Feb/March 2017! 8/
#3: Still more employer events, in May 2017! 9/
#4: "A Universities UK survey which followed the publication of the USS technical
provisions consultation in September 2017." Odd that they list this very survey as among their OTHER sources of evidence. YET MORE DOUBLE COUNTING!!! They can't help themselves. 10/
provisions consultation in September 2017." Odd that they list this very survey as among their OTHER sources of evidence. YET MORE DOUBLE COUNTING!!! They can't help themselves. 10/
#5: "Advice received from Universities UK’s actuarial advisor, Aon Hewitt." Okay. This is the first bit of evidence and analysis that takes us beyond the voicing of opinions of employers in surveys, responses, and events. Would you please publish your advice from Aon? 11/
#6: "The views of the Employers Pensions Forum USS Group and the Universities
UK Board." Now I think @UniversitiesUK is taking the piss. The views of an elite circle of VC's and other apparatchiks counts as further evidence? 12/
UK Board." Now I think @UniversitiesUK is taking the piss. The views of an elite circle of VC's and other apparatchiks counts as further evidence? 12/
#7: "As befits the voice of UK universities, a rigorous, peer reviewed, scientific study of the risk-tolerance of UK universities, involving a variety of stress tests..." Okay. This one is fake. I've just made it up. The list stops at #6. 13/
Regarding the controversy over the manner in which the double-counting of Oxbridge Colleges, on top of the two Universities, inflated, from 34% to 42%, the number of institutions calling for lower risk in the Sept survey, UUK has just this to say: 14/
a. "The Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge Universities are separate participating
employers within USS, and they have a right – quite separate to the University – to express their views to Universities UK...." 15/
employers within USS, and they have a right – quite separate to the University – to express their views to Universities UK...." 15/
b. "... It is for each individual employer to decide how its views are represented to Universities UK." 16/
Re b, it is, however, up to UUK to determine how THEY represent the responses of employers. Employer responses did not force them to engage in a crude one-response-one-vote headcount in order to arrive at their figure of 42%. 17/
UUK says that "In forming our overall response, we also considered the different sizes of USS employers". Yes. They conveyed facts about different size in a highly one-sided and misleading fashion. See embedded tweet and the ones below: 18/
End of thread (at least for now). 19/19
