Phew. Got the course previews (studieplaner) for next semester all sorted out, I think, and voted through in the department meeting yesterday. I’m becoming proficient, I think. I knew the answers to all sorts of things. “If you label that a compulsory assignment instead of assessment it will simplify our administrative burden hugely without changing what you want to do.” “No, the point is that we need to have a digital archive that allows us find a particular student’s digital portfolio exam in HUIN105 spring 2002 in case someone asks us for it in December 2009.” That sort of thing. Actually I’m still not quite sure why or who might ask us for Knut Knutsen’s exam in 2009, but we’re required to keep confidential records of exams for ten years. The students have three weeks after the grades are awarded to complain and request regrading by a new committee, so obviously we have to keep their exams that long. Why ten years, though? Maybe it’s for the national committees that are supposed to periodically survey grading around the country to ensure it’s more or less equivalent.

It felt rather strange leading the meeting perfectly knowledgeably. Almost everyone looked rather bored, to be honest, and yes, while these details are important in sum, I totally see the boredom. That’s probably why the university democracy doesn’t work, actually. Most decisions are so dull that people disengage or don’t show up – but of course real change happens as a result of these many, many small and dull decisions.

But I’m getting the hang of it, and while the juggling still exhausts me (and oh dear, things keep slipping through) there is a certain pleasure in feeling that I know how this works. Well, how quite a lot of it works. And I like knowing how things work.

Day 242, that’s ages. Having checked how many days I’ve been head of department, I had to also check how many days I have left. One year and 273 days. I’ll be an expert.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “head of department, day 242

  1. Liz Lawley

    Speaking from experience (unfortunately), here’s a scenario where you might want Kurt’s exam in 2009:

    Kurt gets a B (or, worse, a C!) in the class, doesn’t really care, and goes on with his university work. A few years after graduating, he decides that he wants to obtain a graduate degree, and his GPA isn’t high enough to get into the program he wants. So he decides to challenge his grade for the class long after the fact. Perhaps he claims he was harassed by the professor, and was too afraid to speak up at the time. The university then needs records to show that the grade was properly assigned.

  2. Jill

    Oh dear. I hadn’t thought of that. OK, well, we’ve got the records 🙂

  3. Scott

    You are now a level 15 administrator, with 4 talent points to distribute as you like.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.