I was recently approached in my capacity as module lead and asked if I’d be willing to trial software known as GrAIde as part of a pilot scheme using AI to mark formative assessments. As a trade unionist and a person who quite likes having a job and an income, I politely declined.

GrAIde bills itself as an AI powered marking and assessment feedback platform which learns from academics and provides feedback to students. According to the website, if the AI has high enough confidence in its predicted grade, it was fast track this, if confidence is low, the tutor will review it. It’s billed as a productivity tool and the marketing of the product seems focussed towards management as opposed to academics – which I think is significant in the context of the current state of the sector, where corporate phrases like “maximising productivity” and “reducing costs” have become more and more normalised. The benefits of the system focus on the micro-management aspects of the system, which would very likely undermine the marking and assessment tariffs across the University.

In my view, marking, alongside teaching and scholarly research, is one of the cornerstones of being an academic. It is a core part of our job descriptions, requiring expert subject knowledge as well as advanced knowledge of pedagogy and constructive alignment, the ability to formulate learning outcomes and assessments.

To relinquish this to a machine is to usher in the very thing that will make us redundant. I articulated my thoughts to my colleagues who had also been approached to trial this software and we fed this back to the person who had approached us.

To their credit, this person accepted our views and, on our behalf, relayed that the software wasn’t suitable for our needs, but I do worry that in the future this platform might be imposed by more senior echelons of the University. I also worry that overworked, burnt out staff, might welcome this without really considering the long-term ramifications. In the short-term, more free time sounds appealing, and if pitched in the right way, staff might focus on the so-called benefits.

I also worry about the impact this will have on our reputation and credibility: if I was a student, I would certainly feel short-changed if I knew my hard work was being marked by AI. From a recruitment perspective it’s probable that students would choose an HEI where their work is marked by a human, not a robot.

I know that AI is here to stay, but senior leadership should be considering productivity tools that help with the repetitive, time-consuming administrative tasks that burden academics: the tasks that don’t require specialist knowledge yet take up an increasingly large proportion of our workload. The focus should not be on streamlining marking and teaching to free us up for even more administration. If we welcome in AI to mark on our behalf, then we welcome in the very technology that will replace us in the classroom.

Stephen Marks (UCU Rep)

UCU members at the University of Sheffield have been taking sustained industrial action against management plans that put jobs at risk and ramp up already unsustainable workloads. Sheffield UCU’s State of the University campaign is clear that this crisis should not be treated as inevitable: it argues that senior management decisions have played a major role in bringing the institution to this point. Nationally, UCU reports that staff took 14 days of strike action beginning 17^th November 2025, with the dispute centred on redundancy risks and wider cuts—up to 20 staff were already at risk of compulsory redundancy at the time.

What makes this dispute especially alarming for the whole sector is the escalation in management tactics. Times Higher Education reports that staff were warned they could face further deductions (“double deductions”) if they did not reschedule teaching missed during the strike, including a threat that “100 per cent of your pay will be withheld” for a stated period, on the basis that staff would be in “breach of [their] contract”. The Sheffield Tribune also reports staff being warned they “won’t be paid unless missed lessons are replaced”. Meanwhile, Sheffield UCU has said it expects further strike action in spring 2026 if a settlement is not reached.

This concerns all of us at MMU because it’s the same model spreading across UK higher education: job cuts, restructures, workload intensification, and the expectation that staff will absorb the damage—while students pay the price in disrupted teaching and a degraded learning experience. Sheffield is not an isolated case; it’s a warning. If one university can push through cuts and then try to punish staff for taking lawful action, others will be tempted to follow. If we don’t stand together, it will be our turn next. The best response is collective action and visible solidarity—because solidarity is how we protect each other and defend the future of the sector.

How MMU UCU members can support Sheffield UCU

• Send messages of support / amplify Sheffield UCU updates through branch networks.
• Donate to Sheffield UCU’s Industrial Action Solidarity Fund (their branch describes it as a “vital lifeline” funded by solidarity donations).
• Support any solidarity actions our branch can organise (statements, photos, delegations to picket lines if further action is called).

An injury to one is an injury to all — and Sheffield’s fight is part of the wider fight to stop UK higher education being dismantled job-by-job and department-by-department.

Update on Academic Career Pathways (ACP) talks – November 2025

We have had several meetings now and, as ever, getting meetings is not an issue.

Following on from the motion passed in September 2025, we sought to agree Terms of Reference for the talks, essentially asking for (i) an evaluation of the justification and utility of the ACPs at MMU and the impact of these on post-92 academic contracts, job roles and duties (including job descriptions), and the allocation of work, (ii)  a consideration of workload implications, and (iii) a consideration of objective setting and performance management within the ACPs.

Academic Career Pathways

The first aspect was dismissed. There has been no movement in any of talks over the fundamental objections raised around the Pathways. Arguments that job roles have significantly changed the work many of you can and can’t do have been dismissed as “perceptions of change”, rather than real changes.

Management argue that the changes to the job descriptions align with the required criteria as set out by UCU nationally. We maintain the position that the changes made to job descriptions and the way these have evolved and been implemented amount to a change in terms and conditions, and for EPC staff especially, do not align with the post-92 contract.

We have repeatedly been told that the ACPs are working, that management are being told that they are success, and that they are winning awards for them, and therefore that we, that you, are wrong.

We have accepted that the ACPs are complex and that there are those who prefer to focus on Practice/Pedagogy. Our argument remains, however, that there should be an element of choice and flexibility in the ACPs to accommodate, as far as possible, a desired career focus. The way the ACPs have been developed and evolve do not facilitate that.

ACPs have been presented by management as a necessity for navigating the competing demands in the sector, and as a way of seeking to recognise a parity of esteem between research and practice. It is true that many institutions are pursuing similar strategies but they are not necessarily as rigid as those implemented at MMU.

We have made it very clear we do not agree with the management position on the ACP.

There is, however, engagement with some of the issues raised. They are, instead, categorising the issues we are raising as workload ones, and have said they are willing to talk to us about that, including RSA. They are also willing to talk about performance and progression. So while there had been no agreement on Terms of Reference, they have agreed agenda items.

Workload

We met with them on 21.10.25 to talk about workload issues. They adopted quite a broad interpretation of these, which would explain more about why in previous talks issues had been classified as workload ones, rather than as ACP ones.

The main points from that meeting were:

• From next year all EPC staff will get 90 hours, self-directed “P” time (as the RSA entitlement). Two faculties apparently already have this. REC do not get this as they are expected to use their research allowance for this.
• They don’t think the PhD policy is too exclusionary or that EPC staff are excluded from annual reviews. Their position is that the change in position to now allow EPC supervision (under certain circumstances) is appropriate and establishes parity, given the differing demands of progression for the Pathways. We will send them the wording and why we think it’s exclusionary and they will look into the PGR review aspect.
• There was lots of discussion on the demands of the sector and on staff, and on the transfer process and how a functional and realistic one might work. We said we were wanting to look at how this could be amended. There is some disagreement over the extent to which UCU was involved in agreeing the existing process.
• There is a commitment to not go over 550 hours for teaching but disagreement on what is included in this. Although this is something we may need to pick up outside of the ACP talks.
• We talked about the impact of changes to roles in terms of identity and career progression. Their position was that people hired onto the Pathways know what that means and are given lots of support and opportunities to develop. For those who were moved onto EPC and would rather not be, they characterise this as a necessity because they weren’t achieving what was required of them. We pointed out that the majority of these decisions were made in the context of Covid and block teaching etc., where many had been flexible and made sacrifices to prioritise teaching and student support, without realising/being told what the consequences of that were/would be for their roles/careers. And that as a result, damage had been done to wellbeing and identity, and career development.
• They said that EPC people can still apply for funding (with what seem like quite a few restrictions including the funding not being research council funding), and be part of REC bids if approved (but not as a PI). They were very careful to state that the word “research” couldn’t be used in the context of EPC.
• They also accused UCU of being too down on EPC and devaluing it. We pointed out that we were just reporting what our members were experiencing. That we recognised there were a group of people who were absolutely happy with their Pathways, but there were also many people who were not.
• We pointed out that we weren’t able to agree to anything and that we would obviously need to go back to members before making a decision, but that pursuing a dispute under the Recognition Agreement in line with the motion remains a possibility.

Performance and Progression

We then met with them on 4.11.2025 to talk about performance and progression.

The main points were:

• If we pursue a dispute, the things we talked about and they said they would put in place in the previous meeting would be withdrawn. We had originally planned to have a branch meeting to make the decision on 05.11.2025 but have deferred the decision to the scheduled November branch meetings instead and we informed them of that, and they were pleased about that.
• They kept arguing that performance and progression weren’t really pathways issues and that by us classifying them as pathways issues, it was stopping us from having a proper conversation about these. We obviously refuted this as, as long as we operate within the pathways, and those have different objectives etc attached to them, they are very much a pathway issue and need to be considered in that context. In particular we argued about the pressure being felt by REC staff and the difficulties in meeting targets with so many competing workload demands.
• We raised the concern that some REC staff were being threatened with a Pathway change for poor performance. We were assured that a transfer from REC to EPC would not be approved solely on the basis of performance issues on REC.
• The main gist from their perspective was that processes are in place and that if individuals are not happy, or they are not working properly, these are things that individuals can raise. So essentially individualising issues which we know are wider. They did, however, agree that there were workload and support issues to discuss around these issues.
• There wasn’t much time to talk about progression so we just asked about two issues. We requested equality data on the REC/EPC breakdown of staff which they said they could provide. We also raised the exclusion of tutors and grade 7s from the Pathways. Again they said this wasn’t a pathways issue, it was a general progression issue, but they said they would look into development opportunities/what was currently in place.

They have scheduled our next meeting for the 9^th December 2025. But we will follow up on a couple of issues by email before then.