Sounds like a certain Sab is out of their depth. It is also nice to know that I can now blame the DPE&W for crap lecturers!

I think it's about time Mr. Francis got sacked (or as a certain nasty woman would put it: "David, you are the weakest link. Goodbye.")

This situation is frankly unforgivable. It beggars belief that Imperial produces world class graduate yet it is organised by an inept bunch of fuckwits... allegedly.

LEQ's are vital to provide feedback to the college about our lecturers. If we simply don't have one, then problems don't get identified with courses. I think it is appalling that one person has made this decision without consultation with students, and what is more he is meant to be looking after our Education and Welfare. Maybe he should actually do the job he was elected to do, instead of running NUS 'YES' campaigns. Enough said.

Several students this reporter has spoken to have suggested that it is unlikely an immense security holes could be suddenly found in such a popular and sophisticated piece of software as Oracle.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

How naive...

Hmmmmm... In fact, I seem to remember my response being something along the lines of 'serves them right for using Oracle...'

F*****g Twat. How amny times do you need to cock it up.

On the bright side, DoC got their paper LEQs out fairly sharpish (I presume other departments did the same). And whether there's a workable system for handling them remains to be seen if the old one is as awful as it's claimed.

It's just a shame that most people probably didn't turn up to the last lectures of term (if indeed there were any lectures left).

"an inept bunch of f**kwits...allegedly". No comment.

Maybe Live should have a "f**kwit of the year" poll. Trouble is, there are only 5 options...

ISE, of course, once again fall down the gap between departments...

Can I refer the reader to a previous article on Live! at http://live.cgcu.net/news/?id=400&ls=0. The article quotes Prof. Rawlings' email: "These unforeseen circumstances, which are outside the College?s control, compromise the security of student responses to the LEQ site?I have decided to cancel the survey." How can we shift all the blame on to Mr Francis? Either I have misinterpreted the above article or its author is just hasn't done enough research. I dunno.

I am glad the LEQ was pulled out. 60% of my year filled out the paper LEQ and we finally got to have our say. I was going to use a supplementary paper LEQ in our dept anyway, regardless to the electronic method set-up.

The article makes out that by pulling the plug on the Electronic LEQ we all suffered a great loss. I don't think so.

A "certain Sab" didn't go out of their depth I feel. This "certain Sab" just evaded students losing further interest in LEQ's, as they would have done if the electronic LEQ had been done and cocked up again.

I am aware that a group of students were asked to evaluate the system to check for security holes - they did their job well and found serious flaws. I am sure that it was upon their evaluation that Mr Francis made the decision to pull out - if he did make such a decision.

Basically, it's great to write stories that fuel rumours. It's even more interesting to read them. But when I realise that it is complete cack that I'm reading I soon lose regard for the author.

All in the name of journalism I guess!

The issue is not that David Francis finally made the sensible decision of pulling the LEQ system. (Even if it means that many departments will not now run any system at all.)

The problem is that these problems were already known.

Last year's DPEW, Stef Evans, lobbied the College to produce a new paper based system. He initially thought an electronic system would work but later said he was "happy to have been proved wrong".

Stef and his AAOs and Dep Reps last January put together a full list of objections to the system. None of these have been adressed.

Ash says "I am aware that a group of students were asked to evaluate the system to check for security holes - they did their job well and found serious flaws."

Frankly, Ash should have the sense to realise that many other students had already found such flaws. Stef paid attention to them. David did not. That's what makes him such a fuckwit.

Ash,

"The article makes out that by pulling the plug on the Electronic LEQ we all suffered a great loss. I don't think so."

Actually I do think so. The electronic LEQs were rubbish - but they were better than nothing. Last year ISE students were part of the disasterous pilot and as a result provided precisely no feedback on our lecturers all year. Because the spring LEQ has been pulled we're now faced with exactly the same situation all over again.

I can't really say anything about these alleged security holes, since I don't know the details. But I find it hard to believe that the system is suddenly less secure than it was last time. Should it have been pulled? Maybe, maybe not. Whatever else - it's hard to imagine the LEQs being a bigger farce than they already are.

Ash Brown on paper LEQ's:

"whether there's a workable system for handling them remains to be seen if the old one is as awful as it's claimed."

It's occurred to me that most of the comments above (where I know who you are) are from people in their second year or below.

As a third year, we were the last people to fill out the "old" LEQ system in our first year. There was nothing wrong with it at the time.

The problem was that the OCR scanning machine (used to digitise the submissions) broke down last year. My response at the time (as ISE Dep Rep) to Stef was "why not just buy a new machine?" I never got a decent answer, but then it was academic because a contract to deliver an online LEQ system had already been signed.

I have some shit lecturers. Some really shit ones - people I wanted to give an open and honest opinion about in the LEQ. Electronic one is cancelled. My department didn't organise us a paper one at the drop of a hat as they were a bit busy lecturing us and marking coursework. End result - my shit lecturers from this term get away with it (until the year reps bitch about them in the year report, but hardly the point).

I feel that I've lost my voice, I'm not being represented. David Francis, during the NUS campaign, put a large emphasis on the representation aspect of a Union (NUS or otherwise)... Well David, where's my representation now?? Shouldn't a decent DPE&W spend his time fighting for students he was elected to represent, not figthing for the NUS? Whether or not it was his fault (and the point that Stef Evans had already known and tried to do something about it shouldn't be wasted on everyone), he hasn't tried to do anything to make LEQ happen for everyone. The guy is a monumental f*ckwit, not to mention being really really antisocial in halls (he lives in my halls and speaks to nobody). grrrrr...

1) The College only use these feedback things to dish dirt on discredited lecturers, IF it suits them - they don't give a rats arse about you; its a version of Top of the Pops, providing a good giggle at the Christmas Party; and

2) And its a fact that when a middling lecturer is following a really shite one, the former is give a generously high apraisal by students... so says my boss! :)

I already got the impression that the college didn't give a rat's arse about me when they tried to kick me out at the end of last year. :-)

I'm merely voicing my displeasure at the DPEW's priorities, not asking union hacks to tell me the college doesn't love me... :-p

Better that than them actively disliking you and actually kicking you out...